Cargando…

Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists

The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barrow, Craig S., Conrad, James W.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367824/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8417
_version_ 1782126751962365952
author Barrow, Craig S.
Conrad, James W.
author_facet Barrow, Craig S.
Conrad, James W.
author_sort Barrow, Craig S.
collection PubMed
description The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies performed or funded by industry are identified as such, meet high scientific standards, and are not suppressed when their findings are adverse to industry’s interests. The more a given study follows these practices and standards, the more confidence one can place in it. No federal laws, rules, or policies express a presumption that scientific work should be ignored or given lesser weight because of the source of its funding. To the contrary, Congress has consistently mandated that agencies allow interested or affected parties to provide information to them and fairly consider that information. All participants in scientific review panels should disclose sources of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The former should be considered in seeking a balanced panel rather than being used as a basis for disqualification. Conflicts of interest generally do require disqualification, except where outweighed by the need for a person’s services. Within these constraints, chemical industry scientists can serve important and legitimate functions on scientific advisory panels and should not be unjustifiably prevented from contributing to their work.
format Text
id pubmed-1367824
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-13678242006-02-22 Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists Barrow, Craig S. Conrad, James W. Environ Health Perspect Commentaries & Reviews The chemical industry extensively researches and tests its products to implement product stewardship commitments and to ensure compliance with governmental requirements. In this commentary we argue that a wide variety of mechanisms enable policymakers and the public to assure themselves that studies performed or funded by industry are identified as such, meet high scientific standards, and are not suppressed when their findings are adverse to industry’s interests. The more a given study follows these practices and standards, the more confidence one can place in it. No federal laws, rules, or policies express a presumption that scientific work should be ignored or given lesser weight because of the source of its funding. To the contrary, Congress has consistently mandated that agencies allow interested or affected parties to provide information to them and fairly consider that information. All participants in scientific review panels should disclose sources of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The former should be considered in seeking a balanced panel rather than being used as a basis for disqualification. Conflicts of interest generally do require disqualification, except where outweighed by the need for a person’s services. Within these constraints, chemical industry scientists can serve important and legitimate functions on scientific advisory panels and should not be unjustifiably prevented from contributing to their work. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2006-02 2005-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC1367824/ /pubmed/16451847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8417 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, ?Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives?); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
spellingShingle Commentaries & Reviews
Barrow, Craig S.
Conrad, James W.
Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title_full Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title_fullStr Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title_short Assessing the Reliability and Credibility of Industry Science and Scientists
title_sort assessing the reliability and credibility of industry science and scientists
topic Commentaries & Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367824/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8417
work_keys_str_mv AT barrowcraigs assessingthereliabilityandcredibilityofindustryscienceandscientists
AT conradjamesw assessingthereliabilityandcredibilityofindustryscienceandscientists