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
Comment
. 2022 Feb;17(3):28-33.
doi: 10.12927/hcpol.2022.26731.

Commentary - From Transparency to Accountability: Finding Ways to Make Expert Advice Trustworthy

Quinn Grundy  1
Affiliations
Comment

Commentary - From Transparency to Accountability: Finding Ways to Make Expert Advice Trustworthy

Quinn Grundy. Healthc Policy. 2022 Feb.

Abstract
in English, French

Declining public trust in government and expert advice is a public health priority, given its impact on vaccination uptake, adherence to guidelines and social cohesion. In the context of the COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force, conflicts of interest that can threaten public trust are handled primarily through disclosures. However, this places the onus on the public to discern the relevance, severity and impact of these conflicts and does little to address whose interests guide decision making. Alternatively, expert advisory committees should adopt more trustworthy strategies, including promoting independence from commercial and political interests.

La baisse de confiance du public dans le gouvernement et les conseils d'experts est une question d'ordre prioritaire pour la santé publique compte tenu de son impact sur la vaccination, sur le respect des directives et sur la cohésion sociale. Dans le cadre du groupe de travail sur les vaccins contre la COVID-19, les conflits d'intérêts susceptibles de menacer la confiance du public sont principalement traités par la divulgation. Cependant, cela oblige le public à discerner la pertinence, la gravité et l'impact de ces conflits et il y a peu de précisions sur les intérêts qui guident la prise de décision. Par ailleurs, les comités consultatifs d'experts devraient adopter des stratégies plus fiables, notamment la promotion de l'indépendance vis-à-vis des intérêts commerciaux et politiques.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment on

References

    1. Algan Y., Cohen D., Davoine E., Foucault M., Stantcheva S.. 2021. Trust in Scientists in Times of Pandemic: Panel Evidence from 12 Countries. PNAS 118(40): e2108576118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2108576118. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fabbri A., la Santos A., Mezinska S., Mulinari S., Mintzes B.. 2018. Sunshine Policies and Murky Shadows in Europe: Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Health Professionals in Nine European Countries. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 7(6): 504–09. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goldenberg M.J. 2015. How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making? Social Epistemology 29(1): 3–30. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2013.794871.
    1. Goldenberg M.J. 2021. Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
    1. Grundy Q., Habibi R., Shnier A., Mayes C., Lipworth W.. 2018. Decoding Disclosure: Comparing Conflict of Interest Policy among the United States, France, and Australia. Health Policy 122(5): 509–18. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.015. - PubMed

Substances