I had an interesting visit to Westminster recently, when I was invited to contribute to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s inquiry on research integrity in relation to the transparency of health and social care research.
You can watch my evidence to
see the full detail and read my follow-up letter to the committee. While primarily about the publication of research once completed, Carol Monaghan MP asked to take the conversation in a different direction to discuss conflicts of interest among researchers, and how the ethical approval process considers them.
It’s clear that it is a relevant discussion: conflicts of interest undermine confidence in scientific evidence.
If we have cause to suspect the relationship between funders and researchers, including between industry and academics, then it raises questions about the motives behind research. That can lead us to question the integrity of the research itself.
That’s why researchers applying for ethical approval for a study are required to answer whether they will receive payment, benefits or incentives for conducting in the research (over and above the direct costs involved). Ethics committees can then consider whether any such financial benefits could cause a conflict of interest.
But as the Select Committee considers where greater transparency can improve the integrity of health research, it seems appropriate to consider a more nuanced view of conflicts of interest. Areas such as financial interests of family members and non-financial interests such as professional reputation were highlighted as difficult aspects in a recent Academy of Medical Sciences report on the topic.
It’s important that such considerations do not prevent good research going ahead. Industry funding of research is a crucial part of the foundations of a healthy UK. Such competing interests do not automatically become conflicts that necessarily bias the results of a study. However, it is crucial that studies are well designed to combat bias and that interests are fully disclosed. Industry, through its Disclosure UK initiative has taken an important lead in this respect. The Academy report also draws attention to the importance of being willing to revisit results and to support the re-analysis of data and reproducibility studies.
For health research to be at its most effective, it must be trusted by the public. That means not only guarding against conflicts of interest, but guarding too against perceptions of interest.
Sense about Science, an independent charity interested in the misrepresentation of science in public life and openness about research findings, is currently working on a more nuanced consideration of research contracts. We’ll wait for their results with interest, before considering whether our guidance needs improving, or indeed if the questions we expect researchers to answer as part of the ethical approval process need expanding.
The transparency debate looks set to define health research over the coming years. The HRA will continue to be at the centre of it.