Reply |Bill Allison to Steve, coral-list
show details August 29, 2010

Good-day Steve:

Disclosure is not a novel concept (e.g., Harding, 1949), and is required by
most journals (e.g., Davidoff and DeAngelis, 2001). Is it unreasonable to
expect it in politically and economically freighted discussions on this
list?
Harding, T. S. (1949). “Vested Interests in Scientific Research.” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology 8(2): 181-192.
A prominent industrialist once spoke of scientific research as being “the
first line of defense of the capitalistic dynamic economy as opposed to a
State-planned economy.” Science thus itself becomes propaganda. Very often
what appears to be an authentic scientific publication is nothing but
disguised propaganda.

Davidoff, F., C. D. DeAngelis, et al. (2001). “Sponsorship, authorship and
accountability.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 165(6): 786-788.

What follows was abstracted from the section on publication ethics from the
“Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals:
Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication”. This was adopted as CMAJ
policy on May 11, 2001.

Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership,
honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts
of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal,
the authors, and of science itself. p.787

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Steve Mussman <sealab@earthlink.net>wrote:

> Realizing that there is a spirited consensus (based on remarks
> posted in previous discussions) that we keep this list from becoming
> politically charged, I would like to momentarily step between adversaries
> involved in the discussion on the media and oil spill science.
>
> My fear is that without modification we may ultimately lose
> the opportunity to candidly discuss issues that are in vital need
> of being aired among members of this forum.
>
> Considering that there is an obvious call for scientists to communicate
> more directly with the public on so many contemporary issues,
> although fully unauthorized, I would like to make a suggestion.
>
> When participants are identifying themselves (by citing credentials)
> it might help to avoid undue controversy (and the associated
> animus this sometimes creates) if they would freely reveal any
> affiliations that might reflect even the potential for a conflict of
> interest.
>
> In this way, perhaps we can assure the continuation of these much needed
> and valued discussions and, at the same time, be able to more accurately
> assess and evaluate the opinions expressed without eliciting resentment.
>
>
> Steve Mussman
> Totally void of credentials worthy of mention.
> Just an old diver and self-avowed ocean and marine life advocate.

August 30th, Bill provided this additional information:

Here are my notes on the Davidoff article if the elaboration is useful.
Davidoff, F., C. D. DeAngelis, et al. (2001). “Sponsorship, authorship and accountability.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 165(6): 786-788.
What follows was abstracted from the section on publication ethics from the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication”. This was adopted as CMAJ policy on May 11, 2001. The full revised “Uniform Requirements” will be published later.
Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. p.787
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships between themselves and others that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict of interest notification page that follows the title page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in the accompanying cover letter. p.788
Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases of other sorts; some journals therefore choose to include information about the sponsor’s involvement in the methods section of the published paper. p.788
Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. p.788
If a study is funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome, editors may ask authors to sign a statement such as, “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.” Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and disqualify themselves from any decisions where they have a conflict of interest. p.788
Editors should avoid submitting to their own journal reports of original research to which they have contributed as authors. p.788

>
>Special thanks to Coral-list