Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
J Law Med Ethics. 2012 Fall;40(3):467-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00679.x.
Concern about financial conflicts crowds out sufficient consideration of other interests that may bias research conduct. Regulations, institutional policies, and guidance from professional bodies and medical journals all primarily focus on financial ties. But why? Economic gain is not the only powerful influence. This article argues that we under-prioritize non-financial interests in the regulation of medical research. It critiques the usual reasons given for regulating financial and non-financial interests differently - that the interests contrast in terms of tangibility, that financial interests are optional, and that financial interests can be efficiently carved out as a discrete area of focus. Moreover, disparate regulatory treatment seems inattentive to the very similar social and psychological forces that animate the bias effect of both financial and non-financial interests and fails to account for how financial and non-financial interests synergistically interact. Under-prioritization of non-financial interests threatens to erode public trust and creates negative spillover effects that weaken financial conflicts regulation. Optimal regulation requires a more integrated, balanced, and proportionate response to secondary interests in medical research.
对财务利益冲突的担忧排挤了对其他可能影响研究行为的利益的充分考虑。法规、机构政策以及专业机构和医学期刊的指南主要侧重于财务联系。但为什么呢?经济利益并不是唯一的强大影响因素。本文认为,我们在规范医学研究时对非财务利益重视不够。它批评了通常为规范财务和非财务利益而给出的不同理由——利益在有形性方面存在差异,财务利益是可选的,并且可以有效地将财务利益作为一个离散的关注领域划分出来。此外,不同的监管待遇似乎没有注意到既激励财务利益又激励非财务利益的偏见效应的相似社会和心理力量,也没有考虑到财务利益和非财务利益如何协同互动。对非财务利益的重视不够,有可能破坏公众信任,并产生削弱财务利益冲突监管的负面影响。最佳监管需要对医学研究中的次要利益做出更综合、平衡和相称的反应。