Growing ties to private industry have prompted many to question the impartiality of academic bioethicists who receive financial support from for-profit corporations in exchange for ethics-related services and research. To the extent that corporate sponsors may view bioethics as little more than a way to strengthen public relations or avoid potential controversy, close ties to industry may pose serious threats to professional independence. New sources of support from private industry may also divert bioethicists from pursuing topics of greater social importance, (...) such as the needs of medically underserved communities. To inform ongoing debates about the financing of bioethics and its transparency to those concerned about potential sources of bias, we examined funding disclosures appearing in original research reports in major bioethics journals. Reviewing research published over a 15-year period, we found little evidence that for-profit corporations are influencing bioethics research directly. Instead, we found evidence that a great number of organizations, both public and private, support bioethics research. These findings suggest that worries about the cooption of bioethics research by a few interested stakeholders are greatly overstated and undersupported by available data. (shrink)

Academic-industry collaborations and the conflicts of interest (COI) arising out of them are not new. However, as industry funding for research in the life and health sciences has increased and scandals involving financial COI are brought to the public’s attention, demands for disclosure have grown. In a March 2008 American Council on Science and Health report by Ronald Bailey, he argues that the focus on COI—especially financial COI—is obsessive and likely to be more detrimental to scientific progress and public health (...) than COI themselves. In response, we argue that downplaying the potential negative impact of COI arising out of academic-industry relationships is no less harmful than overreacting to it. (shrink)

Background Chronic pain is a pervasive and invisible condition which affects people in a myriad of ways including but not limited to their quality of life, autonomy, mental and physical health, social mobility, and productivity. There are many ethical implications of neuroscience research on chronic pain, given its potential to reduce suffering and improve the lived experience of people in pain. While a growing body of research studies the etiology, neurophysiology, and management of chronic pain, it is unknown to what (...) degree neuroscience research in this area engages with relevant ethics concepts. Aim To explore the presence of ethics concepts in empirical chronic pain neuroscience literature to advance knowledge regarding the ethics of chronic pain management. Methods We conducted a hybrid bibliometric analysis and scoping review of chronic pain neuroscience articles published between 1999 and 2021 to identify the presence of ethics concepts. We selected articles from the top, middle, and bottom 20 neuroscience journals ranked by Impact Factor. We conducted a database search of Web of Science and a hand-search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included articles. Findings Our database search yielded 2779 results from which 46 articles met inclusion criteria. An additional 13 articles were hand-retrieved using PubMed and Google Scholar in accordance with the inclusion criteria, totaling 59 articles. We identified four main ethics themes in our analysis: 1) Quality of Life (n = 46), 2) Autonomy (n = 5), 3) Transparency (n = 4), and 4) Beneficence and Non-Maleficence (n = 4). Conclusion Most neuroscience papers do not include a discussion of ethics related to chronic pain conditions. Those that do tend to merely state rather than define or contextualize a particular ethics concept. Given the potential ethical implications of neuroscience research for people living with chronic pain, we argue that to maximize its public health benefit, neuroscience researchers should consider the ethical relevance of their work within their scientific publications. This may generate further ethical reflection within the field, to improve pain management. (shrink)

Background: In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, (...) we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals. Methods: After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available. Results: Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources. Conclusion: Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship. (shrink)

Given that biases can distort bioethics work, it has received surprisingly little and fragmented attention compared to in other fields of research. This article provides an overview of potentially relevant biases in bioethics, such as cognitive biases, affective biases, imperatives, and moral biases. Special attention is given to moral biases, which are discussed in terms of (1) Framings, (2) Moral theory bias, (3) Analysis bias, (4) Argumentation bias, and (5) Decision bias. While the overview is not exhaustive and the taxonomy (...) by no means is absolute, it provides initial guidance with respect to assessing the relevance of various biases for specific kinds of bioethics work. One reason why we should identify and address biases in bioethics is that it can help us assess and improve the quality of bioethics work. (shrink)