Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 71–80 | Cite as

Disclosure is Inadequate as a Solution to Managing Conflicts of Interest in Human Research

  • Helene Jacmon
Original Research


Disclosure is a common response to conflicts of interest; it is intended to expose the conflict to scrutiny and enable it to be appropriately managed. For disclosure to be effective the receiver of the disclosure needs to be able to use the information to assess how the conflict may impact on their interests and then implement a suitable response. The act of disclosure also creates an expectation of self-regulation, as the person with the conflicting interests will be mindful of their own potential biases and aware that their decisions may be monitored. This article discusses some of the problems of relying on disclosure as a solution to address conflicts of interest in research, including the added complexities around institutional conflicts of interest. The case of Dan Markingson illustrates these issues and highlights the vulnerable position relying on disclosure as a solution leaves research participants in.


Research ethics Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Dan Markingson 


  1. Angell, M. 2000. Remarks of Marcia Angell. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Conference on Financial Conflicts of Interest, August 16, in Maryland, United States of America.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, M., and P.S. Florencio. 2002. Financial conficts of interest in human subjects research: The problem of institutional conflicts. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30(3): 390–402.Google Scholar
  3. Cain, D.M., G. Loewenstein, and D.A. Moore. 2005. Coming clean but playing dirtier. In: Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine and public policy, edited by D.M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, D.A. Moore, and M.H. Bazerman, 104–121. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. 2016. International ethical guidelines for biomedical resarch involving human subjects.
  5. Dana, J., and G. Lowenstein. 2003. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. Journal of the American Medical Association 290(2): 252–255.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, M. 2012. Conflict of interest. In Encyclopedia of applied ethics, edited by R. Chadwick, Vol. 1, 571–577. San Diego: San Diego Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot, C. 2009. Industry funded bioethics and the limits of disclosure. In Ethics and the business of biomedicine, edited by D.G. Arnold, 150–168. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ____. 2010. The deadly corruption of clinical trials. Mother Jones, September 13.Google Scholar
  9. ____. 2013. Bioethics forum—Getting by with a little help from your friends, October 18. The Hastings Center.*. html. Accessed October 7, 2015.
  10. ____. 2017. Institutional pathology and the death of Dan Markingson. Accountability in Research 24(2): 65–79.Google Scholar
  11. Emanuel, E.J., and D.F. Thompson. 2011. The concept of conflicts of interest. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, edited by E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 758–766. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foster, R.S. 2003. Conflicts of interest: Recognition, disclosure and management. American College of Surgeons 196(4): 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillam, L. 2003. Secret ethics business? Monash Bioethics Review 22(1): 52–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hampson, L.A., J.E. Bekelman, and C.P. Gross. 2011. Empirical data on conflicts of interest. In: The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, edited by E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 767–779. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lemmens, T. 2011. Conflict of interest in medical research. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, edited by E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 747–757. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lemmens, T., and P.A. Singer. 1998. Bioethics for clinicians: 17. Conflict of interest in research, education and patient care. Canadian Medical Association Journal 159(8): 960–965.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, S., P. Baird, R.G. Evans, et al. 2001. Dancing with the porcupine: Rules for governing the university–industry relationship. Canadian Medical Association Journal 165(6): 783–785.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lo, B. 2012. The future of conflicts of interest: A call for professional standards. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40: 441–451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lo, B., and M. Field. (Eds.). 2009. Conflicts of interest in medical research, education and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Master, Z. 2014. Accountability for research misconduct. Impact Ethics, September 23. Accessed October 2015.
  21. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. 2010. Official letter to Mary Weiss advising outcome of investigation of complaint against Dr Olson. June 15. Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  22. MPR News. 2015. U’s Kaler responds to critics over Markingson case. Minnesota Public Radio, April 17.Google Scholar
  23. Office of the Legislative Auditor. 2015. A clinical drug study at the University of Minnesota Department of Psychiatry: The Dan Markingson case. Special Review. State of Minnesota: Saint Paul.Google Scholar
  24. Olson, J., and P. Tosto. 2008. Dan Markingson had delusions. His mother feared the worst would happen. Then it did. Pioneer Press, May.Google Scholar
  25. Orlowski, J.P., and L. Wateksa. 1992. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Chest 102: 270–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Resnik, D.B. 2004. Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: An ethical and legal analysis. Accountability in Research 11(2): 141–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sah, S., G. Lowenstein, and D. Cain. 2013. The burden of disclosure: Increased compliance with distrusted advice. American Psychological Association 104(2): 289–304.Google Scholar
  28. Schafer, A. 2004. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defence of the sequestration thesis–learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(1): 8–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Shamoo, A.E., and D.B. Resnik. 2009. Conflicts of interest and scientific objectivity. In: Responsible conduct of research, edited by A.E. Shamoo and D.B. Resnik, 189–214. New York: Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sollitto, S., S. Hoffman, M. Mehlman, R.J. Lederman, S.J. Younger, and M.M. Lederman. 2003. Intrinsic conflicts of interest in clinical research: A need for disclosure. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(2): 83–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Stanford University. 2011. The Stanford Prison Experiment: 40 Years Later. Accessed March 8, 2017.
  32. Thompson, D.F. 1992. Paradoxes of government ethics. Public Administration Review 15(3): 254–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thompson, D.F. 1993. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 329(8): 573–576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. University of Minnesota. 2003. CAFE study consent form signed by Dan Markingson November 21, 2003. Accessed October, 2015.
  35. Wilkinson, T. 2001. Research, informed consent, and the limits of disclosure. Bioethics 15(4): 341–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams-Jones, B., and C. MacDonald. 2008. Conflict of interest policies at Canadian universities: Clarity and content. Journal of Academic Ethics 6(1): 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. World Medical Association. 2013. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Accessed October, 2015.

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Student, Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations