1 background of the conflict
More than 300 years ago, scholars of the Royal Society engaged in scientific research only out of curiosity and interest. As Merton said in "Science, Technology and Society in Britain in the17th Century": "Whether it is a formal meeting in the name of the Royal Society or an informal meeting in a cafe or a private apartment, this group of scientists endlessly discuss technical issues directly related to national interests." However, "what we often see is not a group of' economic men' uniting or fighting to improve their economic status, but a group of curious researchers exploring the mysteries of nature together." Because, "scientists are bound to have the desire to win social applause, and making profitable application discoveries will have far more influence than academic circles", but in general, at that time, "the prospect of personal economic interests rarely aroused the motivation of scientists. "
However, with the continuous expansion of the scale of science, while the funds needed for research have increased sharply, the distance between scientific achievements and practical applications has become shorter and shorter, and the boundary between pure science and applied science has become increasingly blurred. This makes science an investment object that may bring huge economic benefits. American Bayh-Dole 1980 Patent and Trademark Amendment is a wise move to conform to this trend. Because before the adoption of this amendment, the federal government departments had two ways to deal with the inventions funded by them (and the inventions made in the projects signed by them): either the patent right was taken over by the department (commonly known as the "right collection policy") or the power was granted to the units that signed the contract, but when the government wanted to use these inventions, it was exempted from paying the "license" use fee. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 fully affirmed the "license policy" [1]. 1986 "Federal Government Transfer Act" goes a step further on this basis: it stipulates that universities have the right to obtain patents on their research results, and sponsoring companies can be exempted from paying patent license fees. In this case, enterprises subsidize university research and development; D's enthusiasm is unprecedented. According to the statistics of the National Science Council of the United States, the federal government accounts for 70.5% of the research funds of 1970 universities, while enterprises only account for 2.6%. By 1997, the proportion has become 59.6% for the government and 7.1%for enterprises [2].
At the same time, universities and scientists are paying more and more attention to the commercial prospects of research results and the ownership of intellectual property rights. According to the figures of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the number of patents owned by American colleges and universities showed an upward trend during the period of 1969- 1997, and increased significantly after 1980. It doubled in 1984- 1989 and doubled in 1989- 1997 [3]. Moreover, with the increasing penetration of knowledge into the economy, it has become a common practice for scientists to establish companies with their own discoveries and inventions, and high-tech enterprises have mushroomed everywhere. It's like red (tinker)
Ready) said: "If you still think that science is only an independent activity in university laboratories and has nothing to do with corporate profits, then your concept is at least 20 years behind" [4].
It is against this background that the scientific circles in developed countries, especially in the United States, sometimes report some negative events that erode the objectivity of scientific research, tarnish the scientific image and harm the public interest because of the excessive pursuit of commercial interests by business owners and scientists, thus making the "conflict of interests" in scientific research an important issue of concern in scientific sociology and ethics.
2 conflict of interest and its main forms
There are different opinions about conflicts of interest. T.Carson's definition points out that when an individual I (individual) cannot perform his professional duties for the following reasons, a conflict of interest will occur: ① There is (or the individual thinks there is) an actual or potential conflict between his personal interests and the interests of his organization P; ② Personal I has an attempt to promote or hinder the interests of X (X refers to non-I interest subject), and there is an actual or potential conflict between the interests of X and the interests of P (or personal I thinks it exists). In other words, when an individual's economic interests or other interests conflict with his professional norms or corresponding obligations, a conflict of interests may arise [5].
It is worth noting that although the word "conflict of interest" is almost derogatory, the existence of conflict of interest itself does not necessarily mean that stakeholders will make mistakes-it just means that there are some factors that affect people's judgment and behavior. However, the existence of conflict of interest does easily lead to immoral behavior. Therefore, "conflict of interest" often refers to the behavior that individuals put economic interests or other interests above their professional norms or corresponding obligations, thus undermining and affecting professional judgment. As far as research ethics is concerned, at least three kinds of standards can be used to judge whether there is a conflict of interest. First, judge whether it violates professional codes and norms; Second, when an act has foreseeable consequences, it is judged according to whether it has harmful consequences (such as affecting scientific judgment, distorting research results or harming the interests of relevant individuals or institutions). Third, judge whether the behavior itself violates the general moral standards [6].
In the eyes of ordinary people, scientists' exploration of nature is a kind of "value participation" that gets rid of all prejudices.
Free) process. However, the philosophy of science, the theoretical research of sociology of science in the past 30 years and the historical facts of science in a longer period have all challenged this. Now most people admit that the existence of interest factors often affects the judgment of researchers-whether intentionally or unintentionally. Wes (Ted)
Weiss) when talking about 1987 US Congress's investigation on the conflict of interest of drugs produced by a company named Genentech, he pointed out that "the most worrying thing is that the researchers who received financial support themselves did not realize that this tendency may affect clinical research and even the treatment of patients". This kind of worry is not excessive. Since 1970s, the research of Hansen and Kuhn has fully proved that observation has a "theoretical load".
Osama bin laden), one of the "paradigm" elements that determine scientists to observe and think about problems is "value". The later school of sociology of scientific knowledge seems to be too extreme, but its idea of attaching importance to "interest factor" as an intermediary between political and social factors in scientific debate and theoretical choice is not completely unreasonable [7]. Science courses also remind people from time to time that the desire for success and the pursuit of economic benefits may often make "honest and enthusiastic people fooled by themselves." As the book How to Become a Scientist written by the American Academy of Sciences and other authoritative organizations said: "In a certain scientific field, several different explanations may be equally applicable to the existing data, and different explanations have different ways for further research. How should researchers choose? ..... want to believe in a new phenomenon, sometimes even more than positive evidence need good control ".
If it is tolerable for scientists to make unintentional mistakes because of the influence of interest factors, then it is a serious anomie for researchers to deliberately distort facts and conceal conflicts of interest in order to meet the needs of fame and fortune. Scientists, like ordinary people, should play different roles. This requires scientists to learn to correctly view various interest relations, especially economic interest relations, and not to let them threaten and control their scientific judgments. Otherwise, it will not only endanger the existence and development of science, but also ruin your career. Here are some typical situations.
(1) The conflict of interest in the research process is a phenomenon that researchers violate professional standards and codes of conduct because they care too much about their own interests (mainly economic interests here) in scientific exploration. A well-known example is the case of eye ointment for dry eye. In the mid-1980s, a man named Shafer came to the "National" University in Taiwan Province Province.
Researcher C.G.Tseng (hereinafter referred to as Dr. ST) became interested in the treatment of dry eye with vitamin A while studying in the United States. In a series of studies funded by the federal government, he studied the therapeutic effect of vitamin A on rabbits, and it seems that he has achieved some success. So I started human trials: first at Hopkins University, and then at Harvard University's Massachusetts Eye and Ear Hospital. According to the relevant laws and regulations of the federal government, the "Human Experiment Committee" of the hospital agreed that Dr. ST should conduct experiments on 25~50 patients. However, according to the later investigation, Dr. ST expanded the scope of the experiment without authorization, violating the principle of "informed consent" and fraudulently conducting experiments on hundreds of patients. Selected cases selectively, wrote and published two research reports beneficial to vitamin A in the treatment of dry eye. Later, Dr. ST and his tutor set up a pharmaceutical company called Spectra to produce the so-called "vitamin A ointment for dry eye". The company publicly issues shares, and Dr. ST and his mentor are the largest shareholders. Later, other researchers who did not hold shares in the company showed that this ointment not only had no effect on treating dry eye, but also had adverse reactions after long-term use. Hearing this news, Dr. ST soon sold all his shares in the company before the public knew it. After the incident was exposed, it aroused great public anger, and Dr. ST and the dean of his hospital were forced to resign. However, because its practice did not cause serious damage to patients, it was exempted from prosecution [8].
(2) Consulting services and conflicts of interest, that is, scientists with certain interests should be both "athletes" and "referees" in related evaluation and consulting services. The famous case is the diagnostic reagent case of Alzheimer's disease. Sacka of Harvard Medical School (Dennis
Selkoe) is a world-famous scientist. Based on his research results, he invented a reagent that can detect Alzheimer's disease, and founded a company called Athens Neuroscience Company. Through the combination of science and pharmaceutical industry, he became a knowledgeable person. On the other hand, due to the variety of reagents for detecting Alzheimer's disease in the American market in recent years, many people hope to get expert guidance. 1997, "Athens Neuroscience Company" provided a sponsorship fee of $654.38 million to the non-profit organization "Alzheimer's Harmo Disease Association" for holding research activities on diagnostic reagents for Alzheimer's Harmo's disease. The Alzheimer's Association persuaded the famous National Institutes of Health to organize this activity with it. At the same time, Sacka also participated in the study as a member of the expert group of the National Institutes of Health. From April, 65438 to April, 1998, in the authoritative journal Neurobiology of Geriatrics, on behalf of the expert group invited by the National Institutes of Health, the comparative research results of various diagnostic reagents for Alzheimer's Harmo's disease were published. Among them, the reagent recommended to people is "Athens Nerve Company". Although it is stated in the article that "Athens Neural Company is the sponsor of this research", it is not mentioned anywhere that Saka, as the judge of this research group, is the founder and major shareholder of this company. In this way, the interest influence of Athens Nerve Company was concealed by the public's trust in two non-profit organizations-Alzheimer's Association and National Institutes of Health. In the same year, in June+10, 5438, the American Wall Street Journal disclosed the interest relationship between Sacka and other companies that recommended products. A week later, Harvard Medical School received an anonymous report that Sakka had violated the school's regulations on handling conflicts of interest. However, when Sacka was investigated by the Harvard Review Committee, he claimed that this relationship has long been well known, and he also explained it in his previous paper. It can be noted that his related papers published in Science on 1992 have never been declared. Others randomly read his eight articles published in 1996 and 1997, and none of them mentioned this relationship. The case of diagnostic reagents for Alzheimer's disease shows that the lack of supervision over interest disclosure will make the market of enterprises attempt to deceive the public in the name of high-sounding academics [9]. similar
There are many examples For example, some researchers at the University of Toronto found through a large number of studies that the funding of pharmaceutical companies greatly affected the evaluation of drug efficacy, and 96% of the recommended articles were written by researchers funded by companies. A man named klimsky (Sheldon
Krimsky) researchers conducted an in-depth investigation. From 65438 to 0997, after analyzing 800 scientific papers, he pointed out that 34% of the authors reported research results related to the companies they owned or acted as consultants. In 1998, he checked 62,000 scientific papers to confirm how many scientists showed their interest in the products recommended in the articles. It is found that only 0.5% of articles contain interest disclosure statements [10].
(3) The conflict of interest in publishing research results mainly refers to the conflict that scientists face when they have to choose between observing scientific norms and complying with commercial requirements because of the influence of interest relations such as fund raising and patent application. We know that the disclosure and sharing of scientific research results is not only a prerequisite for scientists and their work to accept peer inspection, ensure the quality of research and win peer recognition, but also an important guarantee to avoid unnecessary duplication and promote the sustainable progress of science. R Merton also regards "communitarianism" as the basic norm on which "scientific social structure" depends [1 1]. Apart from the consideration of national interests and military needs, a scientist is unwilling to share his research results with qualified colleagues, which is tantamount to an untrustworthy substitute in the eyes of traditional scientists. However, in order to occupy a favorable position in the battle for funds, or to apply for patents, some scientists nowadays often keep their best ideas to themselves and follow the principle of "listen more and talk less". What is even more worrying is that with a large number of academic institutions involved in industrial subsidies, the contradiction between the openness and confidentiality of research results has become increasingly prominent due to the different value orientations of scientific norms and commercial operations.
Harvard Medical School, Blumenthal (David
A series of research conducted by Blumenthal shows that 82% companies require that the academic research results sponsored by them be kept secret for at least 2-3 months or even longer. 47% of the companies surveyed claim that they usually require longer confidentiality time [12]. In the survey of universities, Blumenthal took 3,394 schools of life sciences among the top 50 universities that have received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) since 1993 as the research object, and conducted a survey by questionnaire mail. Among them, 2 167 units responded to the questionnaire. After analysis, 65,438+09.8% of the respondents explicitly admitted that they had delayed publication for more than six months in the past three years in order to apply for a patent (the delay time considered acceptable by the National Institutes of Health is 60 days). 8. 1% of the respondents admitted that they refused to "share the results" with researchers from other universities in the past three years. Multivariate correlation analysis also shows that there is a high correlation between accepting industrial funding and commercialization of university scientific research and delaying publication. Another researcher, R&, surveyed 1000 American companies and R & ampd's survey of the faculty and staff of the top 100 universities showed that 39% of the sponsoring companies restricted the sponsored departments from enjoying the achievements with other universities. 70% of technical managers and 53% of teaching staff admit that there are cases of delayed publication or even no publication of research results [13].
In addition to delaying or refusing to publish the results due to intellectual property reasons such as patent applications, funded researchers also found that when they made research results that were not conducive to the funded companies, they usually faced greater resistance when publishing their research results publicly. For example, according to the American Science magazine, a doctor named David Kern of Brown University Medical College.
Kern), an associate professor, was funded by a textile company, engaged in research as a consultant (later verified by Science magazine as a microfiber company), and signed an agreement with the company to keep "trade secrets". After studying 1986- 1997 for more than ten years, he found that workers in textile companies are prone to a lung disease called ILD. When Kern was ready to make the research results public, the company claimed that the research was not yet mature and prohibited him from making his findings public at the meeting in the name of the agreement. Even if the company name is hidden, it will not be published as a summary. This practice has aroused a strong response from the scientific community, and Science has published many controversial articles in its "Science and Business" column [14]. For another example, the Wall Street Journal published an article in 1996, saying that a study sponsored by a large pharmaceutical company at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) showed that one of its best-selling drugs for treating thyroid dysfunction was far less effective than other much cheaper drugs. However, the company resolutely banned the publication of the research results, and the researchers finally had to withdraw the papers that had passed the review. However, the research on the impact of smoking on human health sponsored by tobacco companies and the global warming research sponsored by coal mining and oil companies [15] also have similar confidentiality problems.
3 disclosure of interests
According to the above analysis, people are most likely to have conflicts of interest when they may gain or reduce losses due to research results. In view of this, some researchers have put forward some principles to solve conflicts of interest: ① Open conflicts. (2) depriving researchers of interests that may affect their scientific judgment ability. ③ Stakeholders do not participate in the review of relevant achievements and papers, and do not make tendentious remarks. (4) Use laws, regulations and policies to adjust conflicts of interest. ⑤ Strengthen professional ethics education. ⑥ Formulate and promulgate clear standards and guidelines for identifying conflicts of interest [16]. Among them, the disclosure of interests is considered to be the most effective means to avoid conflicts of interests and their negative effects. Of course, the premise is that the relevant personnel must realize the existence of conflicts of interest.
From 65438 to 0989, the National Institute of Science and Health issued some regulations to ensure that its research funds would not cause conflicts of economic interests, requiring recipients to disclose all economic interests of themselves, their families and business partners to the government. This practice immediately attracted many people's protests, and the National Institutes of Health received 75 1 complaint letters. In view of strong opposition, NIH was forced to withdraw the regulation. 1995 The Ministry of Health (PHS), the Ministry of Health and Welfare (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States have formulated principles for dealing with conflicts of interest, and asked universities and research institutions to formulate specific implementation measures according to their own reality. As a subsidiary of the Ministry of Public Health, the National Institute of Health promulgated the revised conflict of interest clause in 1995. The new regulations stipulate that applicants for funds must publicly explain to their universities and research institutions what "effective economic benefits" they may get under the "direct and clear" influence of the projects funded by the National Institutes of Health. When the "effective economic benefit" is any form of remuneration or income worth more than $5,000, or 5% of the profit-making company's investment, its interest relationship must be disclosed. According to the National Science Foundation of the United States, applicants for funding must list the cooperative researchers, tutors or other tutors in the past four years to avoid potential conflicts of interest or bias in selecting reviewers. USDA also requires applicants to list their research partners and thesis collaborators in the past five years, so as to make the selection of reviewers more objective and fair. In addition, some professional organizations, such as American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and American Medical College Association (AAMC), have their own guidelines and procedures to avoid 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. Washington University does not completely prohibit this, but it must obtain the consent of the school in advance. All projects involving human trials should implement the so-called "zero tolerance standard".
Standard), that is, teachers participating in the experiment must disclose all economic benefits, even the smallest ones. Harvard Medical School prohibits its teachers from accepting financial support from the joint-stock companies they hold. The University of Michigan stipulates that its teachers' consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies or their income as expert witnesses shall not exceed 25% of their salaries. However, although there are many positive measures to curb conflicts of interest, the recent investigation of the handling of conflicts of interest in American scientific circles by three independent research groups shows that the situation is not optimistic [17].
Another important position to realize the disclosure of interests is the sci-tech periodicals. 1997, "International Medical Committee"
magazine
Editors) recommended a policy aimed at promoting the publication of "disclosure of interests" to all article authors, reviewers and editors, and about 500 journals agreed to this policy. In fact, starting from 1984, the New England Journal of Medicine requires all researchers who publish articles in the journal to publicly declare "all economic interests in the company that may be affected by their research results". Science also requires its contributors to disclose "all the professional and economic interests of the author who may be biased in judging the content of the article", which also applies to peer reviewers, editors and journalists. Many magazines such as Nature and Scientific American have similar regulations [18].
It should be said that in today's increasingly commercialized science, it is of great significance to correctly understand and deal with conflicts of interest and their negative effects. China is in the initial stage of promoting the transformation of science into productive forces, and is vigorously encouraging universities and research institutions to actively cooperate with the public sector and enterprises in education, research and consultation. This is not only very conducive to promoting technological innovation and economic development, but also can effectively make up for the lack of funds in universities and research institutions. In order to avoid detours, it is necessary for us to learn from the experience and lessons of developed countries, establish a conflict of interest regulation system in line with China's reality as soon as possible, and strengthen self-discipline in the scientific community to ensure the seriousness of knowledge production and the authenticity of knowledge products. At the same time, scientists should pay more attention to the care and protection of public interests and assume their due social responsibilities.
In addition, the author thinks that "conflict of interest" may provide us with a useful perspective to examine the evolution of sociology of science. If Merton paints an idealized "macro" scientific blueprint for us, then sociology of scientific knowledge is some descriptive "micro" details. Although Merton's "normative structure of science" is considered to be inconsistent with the reality of modern science, although some people emphasize that scientists' behavior often violates Merton's norms, it is an important feature that distinguishes science from other social organizations. Descriptive sociology of scientific knowledge, and even further structuralism, of course, make us further realize the influence of social and cultural factors such as "interests" and "values" on the formation and choice of scientific theories and scientific ideas, but at the same time, it also gives people a feeling of excessive compromise on "reality" and cannot provide standards and guidance for scientists' actions. All these are closely related to modern scientific research and cannot be avoided. Therefore, we might as well take "conflict of interest" as the breakthrough point, Merton's idealized scientific structure as the key link, and the meticulous and in-depth research of sociology of scientific knowledge as the basic material to find some new understandings that can reflect the characteristics of contemporary scientific research and benefit the integration of scientific communities.