Abstract
There are many institutions and relationships that researchers are involved in every day. One’s affiliation to a university, funding agencies, department, corporate partners, or even family and friends may present conflicts of duties that can impede research or cause harm. Sorting out the nature of our duties, and being aware of the various individuals and institutions to which we owe duties, is essential to avoiding the harms that may come. Not all conflicts of interest can be avoided, nor need they be harmful, and so recognizing when and how to avoid, or at least be transparent, about conflicts when they arise and prevent harm when possible is crucial. As with other norms of scientific and research behavior, we can be guided by the Mertonian norms to help navigate the dangers presented by complex collaborative ventures common in modern science, and devise mechanisms that may help us to avoid the harms that may accrue. In this chapter, I try to define a conflict of interest and provide some guidance and examples to help researchers understand them, avoid them, or at least be aware of them and provide the best transparency to the parties involved.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ascoli, Marcel, and N. Les Rayons. 1977. Rene BLONDLOT N-Rays. American Journal of Physics 45(3): 281–284.
Ashcroft, Richard. 1999. Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice. Bioethics 13: 314–326.
Barber, Theodore X., and Maurice J. Silver. 1968. Fact, fiction, and the experimenter bias effect. Psychological Bulletin 70(6p2): 1.
Bekelman, Justin E., Yan Li, and Cary P. Gross. 2003. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Jama 289(4): 454–465.
Freedman, Benjamin. 1987. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England journal of medicine 317(3): 141–145.
Kintz, B.L., et al. 1965. The experimenter effect. Psychological Bulletin 63(4): 223.
Klotz, Irving M. 1980. The N-ray affair. Scientific American 242(5): 122–131.
Kubiak, Cinead R. 2004. Conflicting interests & (and) conflicting laws: Re-aligning the purpose and practice of research ethics committees. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 30: 759.
Newton, Roger G. 1997. The truth of science: Physical theories and reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nye, Mary Jo. 1980. N-rays: An episode in the history and psychology of science. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 11: 125–156.
Relman, Arnold S. 1985. Dealing with conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine 313(12): 749–751.
Resnik, David. 2004. Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: An ethical and legal analysis. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 11(2): 141–159.
Rodwin, Marc A. 1993. Medicine, money, and morals: physicians' conflicts of interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shrebnivas, Satya. 2000. Who killed Jesse Gelsinger? Ethical issues in human gene therapy. Monash Bioethics Review 19(3): 35–43.
Smith, Lynn, and Jacqueline Fowler Byers. 2002. Gene therapy in the post-Gelsinger era. JONA’S Healthcare Law, Ethics and Regulation 4(4): 104–110.
Steinbrook, Robert. 2008. The Gelsinger case. New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2011. The Gelsinger case. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, 110–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koepsell, D. (2017). Conflicts of Interest. In: Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics. SpringerBriefs in Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51277-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51277-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51276-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51277-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)