LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE
The Working Group on Conflict of Interest and Scientific Integrity explores, among scientists and health professionals, a facet of issues regarding this important topic. This effort aims to stimulate discussion and helps to ensure the integrity of the scientific food and nutrition literature.
CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS
In 2007, the ILSI North America Board of Trustees initiated a broad-based coalition of academic and industry scientists to evaluate issues on conflict of interest and integrity of science. Under the auspices of the working group, a series of projects have been undertaken.
Guiding Principles
The working group began its work on an internal conflict of interest policy for ILSI North America, reinforcing and strengthening the organization’s existing code of ethics. The new policy was adopted by the ILSI North America Board of Trustees and is available here. The policy has been disseminated broadly so that all those working with ILSI North America have a clear understanding of our standards.
The working group maintains that the scientific process requires open, transparent examination and honest interpretation of data, regardless of a researcher’s affiliation or source of funding.
The second project led to the development of “guiding principles” in the form of a scholarly conflict of interest article titled “Funding Food Science and Nutrition Research: Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity.” This paper was peer reviewed by a broad-based group of nearly 40 scientists from health-related fields, as well as by the editors and reviewers of the following six scientific journals: Nutrition Reviews, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Journal of Food Science, Nutrition Today, and the Journal of Nutrition. The journals all simultaneously published the paper, in full or in part, in 2009. It led to several presentations and workshops at domestic and international professional meetings of organizations such as the American Dietetic Association (ADA), Experimental Biology, Institute of Food Technologists, CCC, International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, International Union of Food Science and Technology, and the Society for Risk Analysis. In addition, a poster was presented at the American Association for Advancement of Science meeting.
The principles proposed in the paper provide guidance to researchers receiving funding from industry to help minimize the potential for bias due to funding source. The paper also was published to stimulate ongoing discussion of the conflict of interest issue because of the common desire of food and nutrition scientists and practitioners, journal editors, academicians, government representatives, and members of the relevant industries to protect the integrity of the scientific food and nutrition literature.
The Quality of Research and Funding Source
Research was undertaken to explore the question of whether funding source influences the quality of published food nutrition research through a partnership with the ADA and using the ADA’s Evidence Analysis Library. Over 2,800 articles were examined. The manuscript has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and is under final review.
How Professionals Are Chosen for Expert Panels: Can the Process Be Improved?
Ethical questions have been raised regarding conflict of interest, making it more challenging for the formation of expert advisory committees that advise government agencies and public health officials in formulating nutrition and food safety policy. Due to the growing complexity of the interactions among government, industry, and academic research institutions, ever-more stringent conflict of interest policies may have the effect of barring the most experienced and knowledgeable nutrition and food scientists from contributing their expertise on expert panels.
The working group explored this issue in some depth through a review of the practices of professional societies, voluntary health organizations, foundations, government, the National Academies, and international bodies. A scholarly paper proposes a set of principles determining considerations for service on expert advisory committees and calls for a boarder discussion in all sectors of the research community on whether the process might be improved. The paper is being submitted for publication.
New Areas of Exploration
The most recent activity underway by the working group will address “best practices” for building and sustaining public-private partnerships to advance public health.
PUBLICATIONS