The odium of industry engagement

The risks of odium associated with declaring competing interests have become such that many researchers are now intimidated into refusing industry engagement. I have refused for a decade as I value my independence. But this is not a healthy development. Widespread disengagement with vaccine producers would be like dietitians refusing to have anything to do with the food industry which supplies almost all of the very items that dietitians urge be consumed more.

You argue that those with any industry engagement should be barred from guideline development,1 2 meaning only experts who voluntarily assist industries should be considered truly impartial, or those subscribing to the view that any industry engagement is inherently corrupting of independence. The reduction to the absurd of such radical separatism would be a peculiar kind of hypocrisy where we all left industries to get on with developing breakthroughs and then promoted and advised the use of the best, treating industry like a pariah except when it produced the goods.

When you agree to provide input to a company which stands to profit from your expertise, why should it be done for free or indeed at your expense, as if you were helping a charity or community group? If a company wants me to attend a meeting entailing travel and accommodation expenses, why should I pay to assist it? But the moment I do, I am saddled with the odour of having a competing interest.

Industries wanting independent expertise should contribute to a central pool, governed entirely by research bodies.3 All payments would be via the pool, not directly through a company or industry body. Such an arrangement would seem likely to reduce the extent to which researchers might be tempted into the sorts of lack of judgment that can arise from being too close to a company, while at the same time acknowledging the importance of industry engagement.