Conflict of Interest Policies and Industry Relationships of
Guideline Development Group Members: A Cross-Sectional
Study of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Depression
Lisa Cosgrove, Ph.D.a, Sheldon Krimsky, Ph.D.b, Emily E. Wheeler, M.S.a,
Shannon M. Peters, M.S.a, Madeline Brodt, M.S.a, and Allen F. Shaughnessy, Pharm.D.,
M.Med.Ed.c,d
aDepartment of Counseling and School Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA; bDepartment of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University,
Medford, Massachusetts, USA; cDepartment of Family Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA; dTufts University Family Medicine Residency at Cambridge Health
Alliance, Malden, Massachusetts, USA
ABSTRACT
Because of increased attention to the issue of trustworthiness
of clinical practice guidelines, it may be that both transparency
and management of industry associations of guideline development groups (GDGs) have improved. The purpose of the
present study was to assess a) the disclosure requirements of
GDGs in a cross-section of guidelines for major depression;
and, b) the extent and type of conflicts of panel members.
Treatment guidelines for major depression were identified and
searched for conflict of interest policies and disclosure statements. Multi-modal screens for undeclared conflicts were also
conducted. Fourteen guidelines with a total of 172 panel
members were included in the analysis. Eleven of the 14 guidelines (78%) had a stated conflict of interest policy or disclosure
statement, although the policies varied widely. Most (57%) of
the guidelines were developed by panels that had members
with industry financial ties to drug companies that manufacture antidepressant medication. However, only a minority of
total panel members (18%) had such conflicts of interest. Drug
company speakers bureau participation was the most common
type of conflict. Although some progress has been made,
organizations that develop guidelines should continue to
work toward greater transparency and minimization of financial conflicts of interest.
KEYWORDS
clinical practice guidelines;
conflict of interest;
depression; disclosure
policies; public trust;
research bias
Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science
Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions
Kevin C. Elliott, Ph.D.a,b,c, Isis H. Settles, Ph.D.d,e, Georgina M. Montgomery, Ph.D.a,f,
Sheila T. Brassel, M.A.g, Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Ph.D.a,b, and Patricia A. Soranno,
Ph.D.b
aLyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; bDepartment of Fisheries
and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; cDepartment of Philosophy,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA; dDepartment of Psychology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; eDepartment of Afroamerican and African Studies, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; fDepartment of History, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA; gDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
ABSTRACT
Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest
authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be
exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations
that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although
many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary
authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed
how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams
contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative
study of the authorship standards and practices of six National
Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental
science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study
explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well
as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these
practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms)
that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide
recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.
KEYWORDS
honorary authorship;
inclusive research practices;
interdisciplinary teams;
research ethics; team
science
Institutional Pathology and the Death of Dan Markingson
Carl Elliott, M.D., Ph.D.
Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
ABSTRACT
In the spring of 2015, 11 years after a mentally ill young man
named Dan Markingson stabbed himself to death in an industrysponsored drug study, officials at the University of Minnesota
suspended recruitment of subjects into drug trials in its
Department of Psychiatry. University officials agreed to act only
after a scathing investigation by Minnesota Office of the Legislative
Auditor found damning evidence of coerced recruitment, inadequate clinical care, superficial research oversight, a web of serious,
disturbing conflicts of interest, and a pattern of misleading public
statements by university officials aimed at deflecting scrutiny. In
this article, I examine the larger institutional factors leading up to
Markingson’s suicide and prevented corrective action for so long.
KEYWORDS
Conflict of interest; human
subjects ethics; human
subjects regulation and
oversight; informed consent;
misconduct in research;
organizational and
institutional ethics; research
ethics; research ethics in
university contexts; research
on the mentally ill;
vulnerable populations
