Addressing the Problem of Conflict-of-Interest and Moneyed Influence in Public Health: Some Case Studies

Abstract

The International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (IJPC-SE) promotes the ethical and unbiased application of epidemiology, striving to bring clarity to the science underlying policy options. Its purpose is to promote and protect public health by serving as an ethical and effective counterweight to the misuse of epidemiological evidence. As an applied science, epidemiology can be misapplied, misused, misinterpreted and abused by those intent on so doing. This chapter brings to attention how moneyed influence is being used to infiltrate the epidemiological literature in order to derail the scientific discourse and its role in public policy formulation through the misuse of this science. The need for disclosure of real or perceived Conflict-of-Interest (COI) must be taken seriously especially if those engaged in public health are to protect the public interest. A case study involving asbestos industry influence in a Quebec, Canada, university, and one concerning the development of policy around gift acceptance by the IJPC-SE as a public interest organization are used to demonstrate the realities faced in the modern world of influence in science.

Postscript

• 1. A text edited by Martin J. Walker is expected to be published early in 2017. It addresses in far more depth than seen in this chapter the same and related issues. It is titled: Corporate Ties That Bind: An Examination of Corporate Manipulation and Vested Interest in Public Health and will be published by Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., New York, New York (See: http://skyhorsepublishing.com/titles/11632-9781510711884-corporate-ties-that-bind).

• 2. In April 2017, a further complaint was submitted to Concordia University. The complaint related to the fact that its asbestos report was being quoted by the International Chrysotile Association (ICA) in its lobbying material at a United Nations meeting as part of the ICA’s efforts to prevent the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under the Rotterdam Convention. In response, Concordia put a notice on its website stating that the report had been withdrawn from the website because the author's conflict-of-interest had not been disclosed in the report. Concordia side-stepped its failure to uphold academic and ethical standards, or its failure to carry out an independent, transparent investigation. Concordia never retracted the report; it simply withdrew it from its website (See: http://www.concordia.ca/about/administration-governance/updateon-report-withdrawn-from-website.html).