Some scientists are concerned that too much news media coverage of conflicts of interest in science threatens the public's belief in the integrity of the field, whereas other scientists worry that news media do not pay enough attention to conflicts of interest. To examine news media coverage of conflicts of interest in science, we conducted a ten-year content analysis of stories from the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. The results suggest a steady stream of stories highlighting negative aspects of conflicts of interest in science.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Angell, M. 2001. Medicine in the noise age: What can we believe? Accountability in Research8:189-195.
Barnes, D. E., and L.A. Bero. 1996. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: An analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law21:515-542.
4.
Boffey, P.M., J.E. Rodgers, and S. H. Schneider. 1999. Interpreting uncertainty: A panel discussion. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 81-91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Boyd, E. A., and L. A. Bero. 2000. Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study. Journal of the American Medical Association284:2203-2208.
6.
Brown, D. 2000. Scientists report bid to block publication of an AIDS study; Results not favorable to biotech firm's antiviral product. Washington Post 1 November:A10.
7.
Cauchon, D. 2000. FDA advisers tied to industry. USA Today 25 September:1A.
8.
Cech, T.R., and J.S. Leonard. 2001. Conflicts of interest—Moving beyond disclosure. Science291:989.
9.
Cohen, J. J. 2001. Trust us to make a difference: Ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Academic Medicine76:209-214.
10.
Colglazier, E. W. 2000, October 6. Letter from Dr. E. William Colglazier, National Academy of Sciences, to Ronald Collins. Retrieved 13 August 2002 from http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/colglazier.html.
11.
Davis, M. 2001. Introduction. In Conflict of interest in the professions, edited by M. Davis and A. Stark, 3-19. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
DeAngelis, C. D. 2000. Conflict of interest and the public trust. Journal of the American Medical Association284:2237-2238.
13.
Doyle, L. 1994. Drinks companies pay dons to rubbish alcohol report. The Independent 4 December:00.
14.
18 U.S.C. 1948, Pub. L. No. 87-849, § 208, 1962.
15.
Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43:51-58.
16.
Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-194.
17.
FDA. 2002. Draft guidance on disclosure of conflicts of interest for special government employees participating in FDA product specific advisory committees. Retrieved 12 March 2002 from http://www.fda/gov/oc/guidance/advisorycommittee.html.
18.
Herron, K. G., and H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1998. Public perspectives on nuclear security. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Institute for Public Policy.
19.
Hilts, P. 2000. Company tried to block report that its HIV vaccine failed. New York Times 1 November:A26.
20.
Holden, C. 2000. NEJM admits breaking its own tough rules. Science287:1573-1575.
21.
Horton, R. 1997. Conflict of interest in clinical research: Opprobrium or obsessions? The Lancet349:1112-1113.
22.
Hwang, N., and R. Haas. 2000. Regulators must be unconflicted. National Law Journal18 September:A21.
23.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 1993. Conflict of interest. The Lancet341:742-743
24.
Jasanoff, S. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Kaid, L. L., and A.J. Wadsworth. 1989. Content analysis. In Measurement of communication behavior, edited by P. Emmert and L. L. Baker, 197-215. White Plains, NY: Longman.
26.
Krimsky, S., L. S. Rothenberg, P. Stott, and G. Kyle. 1998. Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: A pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics67:194-201.
27.
Latham, S. R. 2001. Conflict of interest in medical practice. In Conflict of interest in the professions, edited by M. Davis and A. Stark, 279-301. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
McCombs, M., and T. Bell. 1996. The agenda-setting role of mass communication. In An integrated approach to communication theory and research, edited by M. B. Salwen and D. W. Stacks, 93-100. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
McNutt, K. 1999. Conflict of interest. Journal of the American Dietetic Association99:29-30.
30.
Moynihan, R., L. Bero, D. Ross-Degnan, D. Henry, K. Lee, J. Watkins, C. Mah, and S. B. Soumerai. 2000. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. New England Journal of Medicine342:1645-1650.
31.
National Science Board. 2000. Science and engineering indicators—2000 (NSB-00-1). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32.
Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman.
33.
Rampton, S., and J. Stauber. 2001. Trust us, we're experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
34.
Rock, C. L. 1999. Conflict of interest: An important issue in nutrition research and communications. Journal of the American Dietetic Association99:31-32.
35.
Rothman, K. J. 1993. Conflict of interest: The new McCarthyism in science. Journal of the American Medical Association269:2782-2784.
36.
Rotton, J., P. W. Foos, L. VanMeek, and M. Levitt. 1995. Publication practices and the file drawer problem: A survey of published authors. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality10:1-13.
37.
Scott, W. A. 1955. Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly19:321-325.
38.
Shuchman, M., and M. S. Wilkes. 1997. Medical scientists and health news reporting: A case of miscommunication. Annals of Internal Medicine126:976-982.
39.
Singletary, M. 1994. Mass communication research: Contemporary methods and applications. White Plains, NY: Longman.
40.
Smith, R. 1994. Questioning academic integrity. British Medical Journal309:1597-1598.
41.
Spence, J. C., and C. Blanchard. 2001. Publication bias in sport and exercise psychology: The games we play. International Journal of Sport Psychology32:386-399.
42.
Stempel, G. 1981. Content analysis. In Research methods in mass communication, edited by G. H. Stempel and B. H. Westley, 119-131. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
43.
Stolberg, S. G. 2000. Teenager's death is shaking up field of human gene-therapy. New York Times 27 January:A20.
44.
Vedantam, S. 2002. Fusion experiment sparks an academic brawl. Washington Post 11 March:A10.
45.
Wimmer, R. D., and J. R. Dominick. 1997. Mass media research. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
