TY - JOUR
T1 - Legalistic or Inspirational? Comparing University conflict of interest policies
AU - Smith, Elise
AU - Williams-Jones, Bryn
N1 - Funding Information:
As with other large organizations (e.g., corporations, non-profit groups, government departments), universities have responded to the challenge by promulgating policies designed to manage or avoid COI. In the United States, the introduction of university COI policies was driven in part by federal government regulations (enacted in 1995) requiring that all research institutions seeking funding from the US Public Health Service, which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have internal policies and procedures to manage COI; the National Science Foundation (NSF) has a similar policy (Public Health Service, 1995). All university faculty members applying for research funds from the NIH or NSF are required to disclose, to a designated member of their institution, any ‘Significant Financial Interests’ (e.g., financial relationships exceeding $10,000 in payment or 5% ownership in a company) that could cause or appear to cause bias to publicly funded research; however, setting such a formal limit may be somewhat arbitrary, and ignore the differences between individuals with regards to what amount of money is ‘interesting’ (Tereskerz, 2003). These regulations provide a general structure and minimum set of standards for university COI protocols; more than 70% of US research institutions have subsequently implemented COI policies that go beyond the minimal federal government requirements (Cho et al., 2000). Like their American counterparts, most Canadian universities have COI policies, but they are not uniformly or comprehensively regulated by provincial or federal legislation that set out common minimum requirements (Ogbogu, 2007).1
Funding Information:
We thank Chris MacDonald for his helpful comments on this paper, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive critique. We also acknowledge the valuable research assistance of Vincent Couture, Ashley Pringle and Aimee Smith who helped with reviews of background literature, data collection and summary analyses. This research was supported by grants from the Faculty of Medicine of the Université de Montréal (Smith received a COPSE fellowship, and Williams-Jones a start-up grant), and the Institute of Genetics of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant # ELH-147697).
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - In response to growing public and policy concern about conflicts of interest (COI) in university research, academic institutions in North America and Europe have introduced policies to manage COI. However, depending on their form and content, COI policies can be more or less helpful in the effective management of COI. In this paper, we examine and compare the design and content of COI policies at two Canadian research universities (the Université de Montréal and the University of Waterloo), which we suggest, exemplify two general categories or poles on a spectrum of policy approaches. We describe (1) a legalistic approach that promotes a concise but rigid structure, and (2) an inspirational approach that encourages principle-based deliberation and wider interpretation. Each of these approaches has its particular strengths and weaknesses. We conclude with some recommendations to help administrators and policy makers improve the quality, utility and effectiveness of university COI policies.
AB - In response to growing public and policy concern about conflicts of interest (COI) in university research, academic institutions in North America and Europe have introduced policies to manage COI. However, depending on their form and content, COI policies can be more or less helpful in the effective management of COI. In this paper, we examine and compare the design and content of COI policies at two Canadian research universities (the Université de Montréal and the University of Waterloo), which we suggest, exemplify two general categories or poles on a spectrum of policy approaches. We describe (1) a legalistic approach that promotes a concise but rigid structure, and (2) an inspirational approach that encourages principle-based deliberation and wider interpretation. Each of these approaches has its particular strengths and weaknesses. We conclude with some recommendations to help administrators and policy makers improve the quality, utility and effectiveness of university COI policies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70449720776&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70449720776&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1057/hep.2009.3
DO - 10.1057/hep.2009.3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:70449720776
SN - 0952-8733
VL - 22
SP - 433
EP - 459
JO - Higher Education Policy
JF - Higher Education Policy
IS - 4
ER -