Beyond Bias: Aggregate Approaches to Conflicts of Interest Research and Policy in Biomedical Research.

Considerable efforts have been devoted to addressing the problem of conflicts of interest (COI) in health research, policy, education, and practice. An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that conflicts associate with deleterious outcomes for the biomedical research enterprise. Nevertheless, little has changed for research, specifically, since the Institute of Medicine's landmark was published over a decade ago. In this article, we draw on interdisciplinary research on manufactured controversies in science-policy deliberation to argue that the development of meaningful COI policy has been stymied through argumentative "wedges" designed to delay consensus and policy formation. Argumentative wedges disrupt policy formation by mischaracterizing the evidence base, continuously redefining the terms of the debate and/or recommending overly narrow criteria for who should be allowed to participate in policy deliberation. In this article, we argue researchers and policymakers interested in better addressing the harmful effects of COI can improve their efforts through strategic efforts designed to disrupt the wedges of manufactured controversy. Additionally, we argue that efforts to address COI can be further enhanced through embracing a broader framework for COI inquiry. Specifically, we argue that aggregate approaches to COI can help to disrupt these wedges and provide a strong foundation for future policy.