Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 4;18(1):93.
doi: 10.1186/s12940-019-0527-x.

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

Affiliations

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

Xaver Baur et al. Environ Health. .

Abstract

Background: The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health.

Methods: We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest.

Results: Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.

Conclusions: Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Keywords: Conflict-of-interest; Corporate influence; Ethics; Occupational diseases; Occupational health; Policy; Public health; Public health regulations; Research integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Industry strategies to influence evidence and discourse about evidence ( [8] by courtesy of the author)

References

    1. The National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine . Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2017. - PubMed
    1. Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal research misconduct policy. Fed Regist. 2000;65(235):76260–76264.
    1. National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research: Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1992. Accessed 29 Aug 2019]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234523/.
    1. Bero LA, Grundy Q. Why having a (nonfinancial) interest is not a conflict of interest. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(12):e2001221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001221. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bero LA. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep. 2005;120(2):200–208. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000215. - DOI - PMC - PubMed