Confronting conflict of interest in research organisations: time for national action

The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos

The development of pluripotent cells that enable stem cell research (SCR) without destroying human embryos is now a leading priority for science. Public and political controversies associated with human embryonic SCR experienced in the recent past should be alleviated if scientists no longer need to harvest cells from human embryos. This research suggests however additional issues needing attention in order to gain the public's trust and support: the use of mouse embryos and the commercialisation of research. Using a representative sample of 2,800 Australians, and an experimental telephone survey design, this research compared levels and predictors of public support for stem cell research across three cell source conditions: human embryo (HE), mouse embryo (ME) and induced pluripotent cells (iPSCs). The results revealed that the public were significantly more likely to support research using iPSCs than HE and ME cells and public compared to private research (regardless of the cell source). There was no significant difference in support for HE compared to ME research, but the former was viewed as more likely to lead to accessible health care benefits and to be associated with more trustworthy scientists. The results of a multimediation structural equation model showed that the primary reason support for SCR significantly dropped in a private compared to public context (i.e., the commercialisation effect) was because public scientists were trusted more than private scientists. This effect was consistent across all three SCR materials, suggesting that the use of mouse embryos or even iPSCs will not reduce the publics' concern with commercialised science. The implications these results have for public acceptance of stem cell and animal research are discussed in relation to possible solutions such as increasing public awareness of the regulation of animal research and benefit sharing.

Are self-regulation and declaration of conflict of interest still the benchmark for relationships between physicians and industry?

Potential conflicts of interest do not imply wrongdoing, but can create bias, distort decision making, and create a perception that practitioners are being "bought "or "bribed" by industry. Transparency alone may not be sufficient to erase the doubts created when authors of clinical practice guidelines or editorials declare potential conflicts of interest. Can the subconscious obligation for reciprocation that exists when gifts are offered and accepted be fully negated? Analyses of published clinical cancer research studies have found a positive association between pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and reporting of positive outcomes, manipulation of clinical trials, and hiding of "preliminary data sets". More problematic is the issue of clinical researchers leaking preliminary results to the investment industry. Influential literature reviews and treatment guidelines have been associated with widespread declarations of conflict of interest. Some potential solutions are: regulating pharmaceutical companies to declare all gifts to clinicians, or ban such gifts; for clinicians to carefully declare potential conflicts of interest or to provide pro bono advice without accepting industry sponsorship; and for all gifts and payments from industry to academic physicians to be coordinated by an independent review committee. Journals should only allow reviews, editorials, guidelines and opinion pieces to be written by those without significant conflicts of interest.