IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i3p571-585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Besley
  • Nagwan R. Zahry
  • Aaron McCright
  • Kevin C. Elliott
  • Norbert E. Kaminski
  • Joseph D. Martin

Abstract

Two between‐subject experiments explored perceived conflict of interest (COI)—operationalized as perceived procedural unfairness—in a hypothetical public–private research partnership to study the health risks of trans fats. Perceived fairness was measured as subjects’ perceptions that health researchers would be willing to listen to a range of voices and minimize bias (i.e., COI) in the context of a research project. Experiment 1 (n = 1,263) randomly assigned research subjects to a partnership that included (1) a combination of an industry partner, a university partner, and a nongovernmental organization (NGO) partner; and (2) one of three processes aimed at mitigating the potential for COI to harm the quality of the research. The procedures included an arm's‐length process meant to keep the university‐based research team from being influenced by the other partners, an independent advisory board to oversee the project, and a commitment to making all data and analyses openly available. The results suggest that having an industry partner has substantial negative effects on perceived fairness and that the benefit of employing a single COI‐mitigation process may be relatively small. Experiment 2 (n = 1,076) assessed a partnership of (1) a university and either an NGO or industry partner and (b) zero, one, two, or three of the three COI‐mitigation procedures. Results suggest there is little value in combining COI‐mitigation procedures. The study has implications for those who aim to foster confidence in scientific findings for which the underlying research may benefit from industry funding.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Besley & Nagwan R. Zahry & Aaron McCright & Kevin C. Elliott & Norbert E. Kaminski & Joseph D. Martin, 2019. "Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 571-585, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:571-585
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13182
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13182?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, Paul & Edlin, Richard & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan, 2007. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 157-170, September.
    2. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    3. John C. Besley, 2012. "Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 25-38, January.
    4. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    5. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    6. Katherine A McComas & John C. Besley, 2011. "Fairness and Nanotechnology Concern," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1749-1761, November.
    7. Ross, J.S. & Gross, C.P. & Krumholz, H.M., 2012. "Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(1), pages 72-80.
    8. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    9. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    10. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Mowery, David & Feldman, Maryann, 2011. "Introduction to the special section: Heterogeneity and university-industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-5, February.
    11. Dominique Kleyn & Richard Kitney & Rifat A. Atun, 2007. "Partnership And Innovation In The Life Sciences," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Rifat A Atun & Desmond Sheridan (ed.), Innovation In The Biopharmaceutical Industry, chapter 6, pages 109-133, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Dominique Kleyn & Richard Kitney & Rifat A. Atun, 2007. "Partnership And Innovation In The Life Sciences," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(02), pages 323-347.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Gianluca Murgia, 2020. "University–Industry collaborations and international knowledge spillovers: a joint-patent investigation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 958-983, August.
    2. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    4. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    5. Magnus Gulbrandsen & Taran Thune, 2017. "The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 795-813, August.
    6. Tijssen, Robert J.W., 2018. "Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1626-1638.
    7. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    8. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    9. Cammarano, Antonello & Michelino, Francesca & Lamberti, Emilia & Caputo, Mauro, 2017. "Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 204-222.
    10. Taran Thune & Pål Børing, 2015. "Industry PhD Schemes: Developing Innovation Competencies in Firms?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(2), pages 385-401, June.
    11. Andrea Filippetti & Maria Savona, 2017. "University–industry linkages and academic engagements: individual behaviours and firms’ barriers. Introduction to the special section," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 719-729, August.
    12. Glenna, Leland & Bruce, Analena, 2021. "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    13. Aurora A. C. Teixeira & João Nogueira, 2016. "Academic Entrepreneurship In Life Sciences: The Case Of A Moderate Innovator Country," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(01), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    15. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Examining the inter-relationships between procedural fairness, trust in actors, risk expectations, perceived benefits, and attitudes towards power grid expansion projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Kim, Young-Choon & Rhee, Mooweon & Kotha, Reddi, 2019. "Many hands: The effect of the prior inventor-intermediaries relationship on academic licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 813-829.
    17. Fernández-Esquinas, Manuel & Pinto, Hugo & Yruela, Manuel Pérez & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2016. "Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 113(PB), pages 266-279.
    18. Piotr Trąpczyński & Łukasz Puślecki & Michał Staszków, 2018. "Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-32, November.
    19. Cristina Porumboiu, 2021. "The Importance of Clusters for the Development of New Industries," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 24(80), pages 70-80, June.
    20. Rodica Pamfilie & Smaranda Giusca & Robert Bumbac, 2014. "Academic research – a catalyst for the innovation process within companies in Romania," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 16(37), pages 759-759, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:3:p:571-585. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.