Science is an exciting intellectual activity, and now it is a direct driving force for economic development. Indeed, when the economy was previously labeled with the word "knowledge", the connotation, establishment, operation model and social role of scientific research activities, which are the main means of knowledge production, will inevitably change accordingly. At the same time, it also makes conflicts of interest in scientific research more prominent.
1. The background of the conflict
More than 300 years ago, scholars of the Royal Society engaged in scientific research out of curiosity and interest. As Merton said in "Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England": "Whether formally gathering in the name of the Royal Society, or meeting informally in a coffee shop or one's own apartment, this group of scientists was endlessly "What we often see is not a group of 'economic men' joining forces or working individually to improve their economic status, but a group of curious researchers working together to do so." Exploring the mysteries of nature” because “scientists inevitably have the desire to gain social acclaim, and making profitable and applied discoveries can have an impact far beyond academia.” But in general, that At that time, "the prospect of personal financial gain rarely motivated scientists' activities."
However, with the continuous expansion of the scale of science, while the funding required for research has increased sharply, the distance between scientific results and practical applications has become shorter and shorter, and the boundaries between pure science and applied science have become increasingly blurred. This makes science an investment with potentially huge economic benefits. The "Bayh-Dole 1980 Patent and Trademark Amendment" in the United States is a wise move to follow this trend. Because before the passage of this amendment, federal government departments had two ways to deal with inventions they funded (and were made in projects for which they signed contracts): or the patent rights were vested in the department. (commonly known as the "power-taking policy"), or the power is granted to the unit that signs the contract, but when the government wants to use these inventions, it is exempt from paying "license" royalties. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 fully affirmed the "license policy" [1]. The 1986 "Federal Government Transfer Act" went a step further on this basis: it stipulated that universities have the right to obtain patent rights for their research results, while sponsoring companies are exempt from paying patent licensing fees. Under this circumstance, the enthusiasm of enterprises to fund university development has been unprecedentedly high. According to statistics from the U.S. National Science Board, the federal government accounted for 70.5% of university research funding in 1970, while enterprises accounted for only 2.6%. By 1997, the proportion changed to 59.6 for the government and 7.1 for enterprises [2].
At the same time, universities and scientists are increasingly paying attention to issues such as the commercial prospects of research results and the ownership of intellectual property rights. Figures from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) show that between 1969 and 1997, the number of patents owned by American universities and colleges showed an upward trend, and increased significantly after 1980. It doubled from 1984 to 1989, and doubled again from 1989 to 1997 [3]. Not only that, with the increasing penetration of knowledge into the economy, it has become common practice for scientists to create companies based on their own discoveries and inventions, and high-tech companies have sprung up everywhere. This is as Tinker
Ready said: "If you still think that science only happens in university laboratories and is an independent activity that has nothing to do with corporate profits, your concept is at least 20 years behind. "[4].
It is against this background that the scientific community in developed countries, especially the American scientific community, has heard from time to time that business owners and scientists have eroded the objectivity of scientific research and corrupted science due to their excessive pursuit of commercial interests. Image, negative events that harm public interests, thus making "conflicts of interest" in scientific research an important issue of concern to the sociology of science and ethics.
2 Conflict of interest and its main forms
There are many opinions about conflict of interest. T. Carson’s definition points out that when an individual I (individual) cannot due to the following reasons When performing his professional responsibilities, a conflict of interest will arise: ① When there is (or the individual believes that there is) an actual or potential conflict between the personal interests and the interests of the organization P to which he belongs; ② The individual I has the ability to promote or hinder the interests of X An attempt is made (X refers to an interest subject other than I), and there is (or individual I believes there is) an actual or potential conflict between the interests of X and the interests of P. In other words, a conflict of interest may arise when an individual’s economic or other interests conflict with the professional norms or corresponding obligations to which he or she should abide by [5].
It is worth noting that although the term "conflict of interest" is almost derogatory, the existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the interest subject will make mistakes - it only indicates: There are factors that influence people's judgment and behavior. Nonetheless, the existence of conflict of interest situations does tend to lead to unethical behavior. Therefore, "conflict of interest" in ethics often refers to a behavior that undermines and affects professional judgment because an individual puts economic interests or other interests above his or her professional norms or corresponding obligations. In terms of research ethics, there are at least three categories of criteria that can be used to determine whether a conflict of interest exists. First, it is judged based on whether it violates professional codes and norms; second, when a certain behavior has foreseeable consequences, it is judged based on whether it produces harmful consequences (such as affecting scientific judgment, distorting research results, or causing relevant individuals or institutions to interests are harmed). Third, judge based on whether the behavior itself violates general moral principles [6].
In the minds of ordinary people, scientists' exploration of nature is a "value-free" process that is free of all prejudices. However, theoretical research on the philosophy of science and sociology of science in the past thirty years, as well as scientific historical facts over a longer period of time, have all posed challenges to this. Nowadays, most people admit that the existence of interest factors often affects the judgment of researchers-whether intentionally or unintentionally. Ted Weiss (Ted
When talking about the 1987 U.S. Congressional conflict of interest investigation into a drug produced by a company called Genentech, he pointed out: "The most worrying thing is that the research that received financial support The personnel themselves were not aware that predispositions could affect clinical research or even patient treatment." This worry is not undue. Since the 1970s, research by Hansen, Kuhn and others has fully demonstrated that observation has "theory load" (theory
laden), and one of the "paradigm" elements that determines scientists' observation and thinking about problems is is "value". Although the sociology of scientific knowledge school that emerged later seemed a little too extreme, it was not completely ignorant of the idea of ??attaching importance to "interest factors" in scientific debates and theoretical selections "as an intermediary between political and social factors". Reason [7]. The process of science also reminds people from time to time: the desire for success and the pursuit of economic interests may often make "people who are honest and passionate about their work be fooled by themselves." As stated in the book "How to Be a Scientist" co-authored by several authoritative organizations including the National Academy of Sciences: "In a certain scientific field, several different explanations may be equally applicable to existing data. And different explanations have different avenues for further research. How should researchers choose? ... The desire to believe in a new phenomenon sometimes even outweighs the requirement for positive, well-controlled evidence."
If it is tolerable for scientists to make mistakes unintentionally due to the influence of interest factors, then it is the practice of researchers to deliberately distort facts and conceal conflicts of interest in order to adapt to the need to pursue fame and fortune. A gross anomie. Scientists, like ordinary people, have to play different roles. This requires scientists to learn to correctly view various interest relationships, especially economic interest relationships, and not to let them threaten or control their scientific judgment. Otherwise, it will not only endanger the existence and development of scientific undertakings, but may also ruin your career.
Here are some typical scenarios.
(1) Conflict of interest in the research process refers to the phenomenon that in scientific exploration, researchers violate professional standards and behavioral norms because they excessively consider their own interests (here mainly refers to economic interests). Famous examples include "The Case of Eye Ointment for Dry Eyes." In the mid-1980s, a researcher named C.G. Tseng (hereinafter referred to as Dr. ST) from Taiwan's "National" University became interested in using vitamin A to treat dry eyes while studying in the United States. . He has been studying such therapeutic effects of vitamin A on rabbits in a series of federally funded studies, and appears to have had some success. So began human trials: first at Hopkins and later at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary at Harvard. The "Human Experimentation Committee" of the hospital approved Dr. ST's trial on 25 to 50 patients in accordance with the relevant regulations of the federal government. However, according to subsequent investigations, Dr. ST expanded the scope of the trial without authorization, violated the principle of "informed consent", and deceptively tried it on hundreds of patients. Selected cases were selected, and two research reports were written and published that were beneficial to the treatment of dry eyes with vitamin A. Afterwards, Dr. ST and his mentor established a pharmaceutical company called Spectra to produce the so-called "vitamin A ointment to treat dry eyes." The company issued shares publicly, and Dr. ST and his mentor were the largest shareholders. Later studies by other researchers who did not own shares in the company showed that not only was the ointment ineffective at treating dry eyes, but it could also cause adverse effects with long-term use. Dr. ST heard the news and quickly sold all his shares in the company before the public knew about it. After the incident was exposed, it aroused great public indignation, and both Dr. ST and the director of the hospital where he worked were forced to resign. However, because his practice did not cause serious harm to the patient, he was exempted from prosecution [8].
(2) Consulting services and conflicts of interest: That is, scientists with a certain interest relationship serve as both "athletes" and "referees" in relevant review and consulting services. The famous case is the "Alzheimer's disease diagnostic reagent case". Dennis Selkoe of Harvard Medical School is a world-famous scientist. Based on his own research results, he invented a reagent that can detect Alzheimer's disease and Founded a business called "Athens Neurosciences". By combining science with the pharmaceutical industry, he became an intellectual tycoon. On the other hand, because there are many types of reagents for detecting Alzheimer's disease on the US market in recent years, many people hope to get guidance from experts. In 1997, Athens Neuroscience provided a $100,000 sponsorship to the Alzheimer's Association, a non-profit organization, to host a research event on Alzheimer's diagnostic reagents. The "Alzheimer's Disease Association" persuaded the highly prestigious "National Institutes of Health" to organize this event with its president. At the same time, Selke also participated in the research as a member of the National Institutes of Health expert panel. In April 1998, in the authoritative journal "Geriatric Neurobiology" in this field, in the name of a specially invited expert group from the National Institute of Health, the results of a comparative study of various Alzheimer's disease diagnostic reagents were published. Among them, the reagents of "Athens Neuro Company" are particularly recommended to people. Although the article states that "Athens NeuroCorporation is the sponsor of this study," it does not mention anywhere that Selke, who serves as a judge of the research team, is the founder and major shareholder of the company. In this way, the profit influence of "Athens NeuroCorporation" is hidden from the public by relying on the public's trust in two non-profit organizations, "Alzheimer's Association" and "National Institutes of Health." In October of the same year, the American "Wall Street Journal" exposed the interest relationship between Selke and others and recommended product companies. A week later, Harvard Medical School received an anonymous tip alleging that Selke violated the school's rules on dealing with conflicts of interest. However, when Selke was investigated by the "Harvard Review Committee", he claimed that the relationship was already known and he had explained it in previous papers. However, some people noticed that the relevant paper he published in Science in 1992 never included a statement of interest.
Someone else randomly checked the eight articles he published in 1996 and 1997, but none of them mentioned this relationship. The “Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnostic Reagent Case” shows that the lack of supervision of interest disclosure will allow companies’ market attempts to deceive the public in the name of high-level academics [9]. There are many similar
examples. For example, some researchers at the University of Toronto found through extensive research that funding from pharmaceutical companies greatly affects the evaluation of drug efficacy. 96% of the recommended articles were written by researchers sponsored by the companies. A researcher named Sheldon
Krimsky conducted an in-depth investigation into this. In 1997, he analyzed 800 scientific papers and found that in 34 of them, the authors reported findings related to companies in which they owned stock or served as consultants. In 1998, he examined 62,000 scientific papers to determine how many scientists indicated their interest in the products they recommended. It was found that only 0.5 of the articles included a statement of interest disclosure [10].
(3) Conflicts of interest when publishing research results mainly refer to what scientists face when they must choose between complying with scientific norms and submitting to commercial requirements due to the influence of interest relationships such as fund raising and patent applications. conflict. We know that the openness and sharing of scientific research results is not only a prerequisite for scientists and their work to be inspected by their peers, ensure the quality of research, and win recognition from their peers, but it is also an important guarantee for avoiding unnecessary duplication and promoting continued scientific progress. R. Merton also regards “publicism” as the basic norm on which “scientific social structure” depends [11]. In addition to considerations of national interests and military needs, a scientist who is unwilling to share research results with qualified colleagues is tantamount to an untrustworthy alternative in the eyes of traditional scientists. However, some scientists today often keep silent about their best ideas and pursue the so-called "listen more and talk less" principle in order to gain an advantageous position in the competition for funding or apply for patents. What is even more worrying is that as industrial funding heavily intervenes in academic institutions, the contradiction between the disclosure and confidentiality of research results arising from the different value orientations of scientific norms and commercial operations has become increasingly prominent.
A series of studies led by David Blumenthal of Harvard Medical School showed that 82% of companies require that the academic research results they sponsor must be kept confidential for patent applications At least 2-3 months or even longer. Forty-seven companies surveyed claimed that they usually require longer confidentiality periods [12]. In the survey of universities, Blumenthal used a mailed questionnaire to study 3,394 life sciences schools at the top 50 universities that have received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since 1993. investigation. Among them, 2167 surveyed units responded to the questionnaire. After analysis, 19.8% of the respondents explicitly admitted that they had delayed publication for more than 6 months in the past three years in order to apply for a patent (the National Institute of Health considers the acceptable delay time to be 60 days). 8.1 of the respondents admitted to refusing to “share results” with researchers at other universities in the past three years. Multivariate correlation analysis also showed that receipt of industry funding and the commercialization of university scientific research were highly correlated with delayed publication. Another researcher, Rahm, conducted a survey of 1,000 company technical managers in the United States and department members of the top 100 universities in the United States and found that 39% of the sponsoring companies restricted the departments they sponsored from other departments. The university shares the results. 70% of technical managers and 53% of department members admitted that there were cases of delayed publication or even no publication of research results at all [13].
In addition to delaying or refusing to publish results for intellectual property considerations such as patent applications, sponsored researchers also found that when they made research results that were unfavorable to the sponsoring company, they publicly published their research There is usually greater resistance when it comes to results.
For example, according to the American "Science" magazine, an associate professor named David Kern at Brown University School of Medicine was funded by a "certain" textile company to conduct research as a consultant (later "Science" magazine verified it as Microfibres), and signed a "trade secret" agreement with the company. After more than ten years of research from 1986 to 1997, he found that workers at the textile company were susceptible to a lung disease called ILD. When Kern was ready to make the findings public, the company claimed the research was premature and had an agreement prohibiting him from presenting his findings at conferences. Even if the company name is hidden and published in summary form, it will not work. This approach aroused strong response from the scientific community, and "Science" published many controversial articles on this issue in its "Science and Business" column [14]. For example, the Wall Street Journal published an article in 1996 that a large pharmaceutical company sponsored a study conducted by the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which showed that one of the company's best-selling drugs for treating thyroid dysfunction was far less effective than other drugs with higher prices. Other drugs that are much cheaper are more effective. However, the company firmly prohibited the publication of the research results, and the researchers finally had to withdraw the paper that had passed the review. Similar confidentiality issues also exist in research funded by tobacco companies on the effects of smoking on human health, and in research on global warming sponsored by coal mining and oil companies [15].
3 Disclosure of interests
Based on the above analysis, it can be seen that conflicts of interest are most likely to occur when people may profit or reduce losses from research results. In view of this, some researchers have proposed several principles for resolving conflicts of interest: ① Disclosure of conflicts. ② Deprive researchers of benefits that may affect their scientific judgment. ③ Stakeholders will not participate in the review of relevant results and papers, and will not make tendentious remarks. ④ Turn to laws, rules and policies that regulate conflicts of interest. ⑤ Strengthen professional ethics education. ⑥ Develop and promulgate clear standards and guidelines for identifying conflicts of interest [16]. Among them, disclosure of interests is considered the most effective means to avoid conflicts of interest and their negative effects. Of course, the prerequisite for this is that the relevant personnel must acknowledge the existence of a conflict of interest situation.
In 1989, in order to ensure that its research funding would not cause conflicts of economic interests, the National Institutes of Health of the United States promulgated some regulations requiring recipients to disclose their personal, family and personal information to the government. All financial interests of business partners. This approach immediately sparked protests from many people, and the National Institutes of Health received 751 letters complaining. In response to strong opposition, the National Institutes of Health was forced to withdraw the rule. In 1995, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the U.S. Department of Health and Welfare (HHS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) jointly formulated principles for handling conflicts of interest and required each to Universities and research institutions will formulate specific implementation methods based on their respective realities. The National Institutes of Health, an agency affiliated with the Department of Public Health, promulgated revised conflict of interest provisions in 1995. The new terms stipulate that funding applicants must publicly explain to their universities and research institutions what "effective economic benefits" the applicant may receive under the "direct and clear" impact of the NIH-sponsored project. And when the "effective economic interest" is any form of remuneration, income, or investment in a profitable company worth more than $5,000, the interest must be disclosed. The National Science Foundation stipulates that grant applicants must list co-investigators, mentors, or other mentors within the past four years to avoid potential conflicts of interest or bias in selecting reviewers. The USDA also requires grant applicants to list their research partners and paper collaborators within the past five years to make the selection of reviewers more objective and fair. In addition, some professional organizations, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), have their own guidelines and procedures for avoiding conflicts of interest. Most American universities have similar policies. For example, the University of California, San Francisco stipulates that if teachers have an interest relationship with companies that provide drugs and medical devices, they cannot participate in relevant clinical trials.
The University of Washington does not completely prohibit this, but must obtain the school's prior consent. All projects involving human experimentation must implement the so-called "zero-tolerance standard", that is, teachers participating in the experiment must disclose all financial interests, even the smallest interests. exception. Harvard Medical School prohibits its faculty from accepting funding from companies in which they hold stock. The University of Michigan stipulates that the income its faculty receive from pharmaceutical companies for consulting fees or serving as expert witnesses must not exceed 25% of their salary. However, despite many proactive measures to curb conflicts of interest, a recent survey of the U.S. scientific community's handling of conflicts of interest conducted by three independent research groups shows that the situation is not optimistic [17].
Another important position for realizing interest disclosure is scientific journals. In 1997, the International Committee of Medical
Journal
Editors recommended to all article authors, reviewers and editors a program aimed at promoting Implement a "disclosure of interests" policy, to which approximately 500 journals endorse. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine has required researchers publishing in the journal since 1984 to disclose "all financial interests in companies that may be affected by the results of their research." Science also requires its contributors to disclose "all professional and financial interests of authors that might bias their judgment of the content of their articles," and this requirement also applies to its peer reviewers, editors, and reporters. Many magazines such as "Nature" and "Scientific American" also have similar regulations [18].
It should be said that in today's increasingly commercialized world of science, it is of great significance to correctly understand and handle conflicts of interest and their negative impacts. Our country is in the initial stage of promoting the transformation of science into productivity, and is vigorously encouraging universities and research institutions to actively cooperate with public authorities and various enterprises in education, research and consulting. This is not only extremely beneficial to promoting technological innovation and economic development, but can also effectively make up for the lack of funding for universities and research institutions. In order to avoid detours, we must learn from the experiences and lessons of developed countries, establish a conflict of interest control system that is in line with my country's reality as soon as possible, and strengthen self-discipline in the scientific community to ensure the seriousness of knowledge production and the truth of knowledge products. At the same time, scientists should pay more attention to caring for and protecting public interests and assume their due social responsibilities.
In addition, the author believes that "conflict of interest" may provide us with a useful perspective for examining the evolution of scientific sociology. If Merton has drawn an "idealized" "macro" scientific blueprint for us, the sociology of scientific knowledge is some "descriptive" "micro" details. Although Merton's "normative structure of science" is considered not to be in line with the reality of modern science, and although some people emphasize that the behavior of scientists often violates Merton's norms, it is an important feature that distinguishes science from other social institutions. Descriptive sociology of scientific knowledge, and even constructivism that goes further, have certainly allowed us to further see the impact of social and cultural factors such as "interests" and "values" on the formation and selection of scientific theories and scientific ideas, but it At the same time, it also gives people a sense of excessive compromise with "reality" and fails to provide standards and guidelines for the appropriateness of scientists' actions. All of this is closely related to modern scientific research and cannot be avoided. Therefore, we might as well take "conflict of interest" as the entry point, use Merton's idealized scientific structure as the outline, and use the detailed and in-depth research on the sociology of scientific knowledge as the basic material to find some concepts that can not only reflect the characteristics of contemporary scientific research, but also be important to the society. The scientific community integrates beneficial new insights.