Assessing the reliability and credibility of industry science and scientists.

The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies performed or funded by industry are identified as such, meet high scientific standards, and are not suppressed when their findings are adverse to industry's interests. The more a given study follows these practices and standards, the more confidence one can place in it. No federal laws, rules, or policies express a presumption that scientific work should be ignored or given lesser weight because of the source of its funding. To the contrary, Congress has consistently mandated that agencies allow interested or affected parties to provide information to them and fairly consider that information. All participants in scientific review panels should disclose sources of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The former should be considered in seeking a balanced panel rather than being used as a basis for disqualification. Conflicts of interest generally do require disqualification, except where outweighed by the need for a person's services. Within these constraints, chemical industry scientists can serve important and legitimate functions on scientific advisory panels and should not be unjustifiably prevented from contributing to their work.

Workshop proceedings: managing conflict of interest in science. A little consensus and a lot of controversy.

There is no doubt that participants in the Conflict of Interest (COI) Workshop at the Society of Toxicology (SOT) 2005 Annual Meeting (New Orleans, 6-10 March 2005) engaged in a vigorous and useful exchange of diverse ideas and viewpoints. While there was consensus on the value and interest of this Workshop, there was less consensus and more controversy over many of the issues discussed during the Workshop, which included the distinction between bias and conflict, the success or failure of policies of disclosure, whether waivers should or should not be granted to conflicted individuals in order to seat a "balanced" committee with appropriate expertise, whether conflicted individuals retain the ability to recognize their own conflict, and more. The discussion left no doubt, however, that conflict of interest will remain an important and controversial issue in the scientific community for some time to come.