IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0175643.html

Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships

Author

Listed:
  • John C Besley
  • Aaron M McCright
  • Nagwan R Zahry
  • Kevin C Elliott
  • Norbert E Kaminski
  • Joseph D Martin

Abstract

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175643
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175643
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175643
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175643&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michaels, D. & Monforton, C., 2005. "Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public's health and environment," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(S1), pages 39-48.
    2. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2005. "The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    4. Keith Kloor, 2015. "GM-crop opponents expand probe into ties between scientists and industry," Nature, Nature, vol. 524(7564), pages 145-146, August.
    5. Robert Brulle, 2014. "Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 681-694, February.
    6. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    7. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    8. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    9. Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley & Zheng Yang, 2008. "Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1552, December.
    10. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
    11. Thrasher, James F. & Besley, John C. & González, Wendy, 2010. "Perceived justice and popular support for public health laws: A case study around comprehensive smoke-free legislation in Mexico City," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 787-793, March.
    12. Simon Joss & Arthur Brownlea, 1999. "Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy- and decision-making in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 321-330, October.
    13. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2011. "When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 836-857.
    14. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Mowery, David & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "Introduction to the special section: Heterogeneity and university-industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-5, February.
    15. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schultz, Émilien & Mancini, Julien & Ward, Jeremy K., 2023. "What does the French public consider to be a conflict of interest for medical researchers?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 327(C).
    2. John C. Besley & Nagwan R. Zahry & Aaron McCright & Kevin C. Elliott & Norbert E. Kaminski & Joseph D. Martin, 2019. "Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 571-585, March.
    3. Leland L. Glenna, 2017. "AFHVS 2017 presidential address," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 1021-1031, December.
    4. Joseph Árvai & Sara Goto Gray & Kaitlin T. Raimi & Robyn Wilson & Caitlin Drummond, 2020. "Industry‐Dominated Science Advisory Boards Are Perceived To Be Legitimate…But Only When They Recommend More Stringent Risk Management Policies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2329-2339, November.
    5. Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John C. Besley & Nagwan R. Zahry & Aaron McCright & Kevin C. Elliott & Norbert E. Kaminski & Joseph D. Martin, 2019. "Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 571-585, March.
    2. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    3. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    4. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    5. Ismayilov, Huseyn & Potters, Jan, 2013. "Disclosing advisor's interests neither hurts nor helps," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 314-320.
    6. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    7. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    8. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.
    10. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    12. Bazerman, Max H. & Sezer, Ovul, 2016. "Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 95-105.
    13. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    14. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    15. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.
    17. Magnus Gulbrandsen & Taran Thune, 2017. "The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 795-813, August.
    18. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    19. Kaitlynn Sandstrom‐Mistry & Frank Lupi & Hyunjung Kim & Joseph A. Herriges, 2023. "Comparing water quality valuation across probability and non‐probability samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 744-761, June.
    20. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0175643. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.