Does psychology have a conflict-of-interest problem?

Tom Chivers
Nature
Originally published July 2, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

But other psychologists say they think personal speaking fees ought to be declared. There is no suggestion that any scientists are deliberately skewing their results to maintain their speaking income. But critics say that lax COI disclosure norms could create problems by encouraging some scientists to play down — perhaps unconsciously — findings that contradict their arguments, and could lead them to avoid declaring other conflicts. “A lot of researchers don’t know where to draw the line [on COIs],” says Chris Chambers, a psychologist at the University of Cardiff, UK, who is an editor for five journals, including one on psychology. “And because there are no norms they gravitate to saying nothing.”

Researchers who spoke to Nature about their concerns say they see the issue as connected to psychology’s greater need for self-scrutiny because of some high-profile cases of misconduct, as well as to broader concerns about the reproducibility of results. “Even the appearance of an undisclosed conflict of interest can be damaging to the credibility of psychological science,” says Scott Lilienfeld, the editor-in-chief of Clinical Psychological Science (CPS), which published papers of Twenge’s in 2017 and 2018. “The heuristic should be ‘when in doubt, declare’,” he says (although he added that he did not have enough information to judge Twenge’s non-disclosures in CPS). Psychology, he adds, needs to engage in a “thoroughgoing discussion of what constitutes a conflict of interest, and when and how such conflicts should be disclosed”.

The info is here.

Health Guideline Panels Struggle with Conflicts of Interest

By Duff Wilson
The New York Times
Money and Policy

All 16 members of the United States Preventive Services Task Force were vetted to ensure they had no financial conflicts that would prohibit them from voting, according to the panel’s vice chairman, Dr. Albert L. Siu.

But three other federal panels that are quietly developing major public health guidelines on the leading causes of cardiovascular disease — hypertension, cholesterol and obesity — operate under less stringent ethics recommendations.

And one potential conflict after another has surfaced among the members, with some receiving speakers’ fees from drug companies, others consulting for pay and others doing company-financed research.
In all, about 20 of the three panels’ members, including some co-chairmen, have been advised that they should not vote on crucial issues as they prepare to issue the health guidelines next year — because they are too closely connected to industries with a keen interest in the panels’ recommendations.

Nearly a decade ago, the work of similar panels was so marred by charges of industry bias that the National Institutes of Health extensively heightened the scrutiny for individual panelists. But the decline in federal financing for medical research continued to pose problems, leaving many researchers to rely more heavily on private industry support. Specific new rules have been adopted to reduce the impact of conflicts of interest on guideline-writing panels.

But the N.I.H. groups, which meet behind closed doors, partly to avoid outside influence, had already been appointed when some of those rules were issued. Their finished work could wield a powerful influence on medical care, insurance and lifelong treatment for hypertension, obesity and cholesterol.

The entire article can be found here.