Scientist-consultants who are paid by industries but who serve as faculty professors frequently testify before Congress and federal regulatory agencies without pausing to reveal their industry connections. Science departments in public universities enter into multi-million-dollar contracts with private corporations, yet few details are revealed about the nature of such agreements. Medical and other science journals all too frequently publish articles without adequately disclosing even major conflicts of interest.

So great is the problem that Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, recently called on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to “clarify its regulations regarding conflict of interest . . . .” Responding to that charge, earlier this month the NIH convened a two-day conference on “Human Subject Protection and Financial Conflicts of Interest.” Echoing that concern, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is conducting its own study of the conflicts problem, as is the Association of American Universities. Likewise, and this month, too, Dr. David Kessler, Dean of the Yale Medical School, co-authored a report strongly urging the World Health Organization to strengthen its conflicts-of-interest policies.

It seems like everywhere there is concern; everywhere there is talk of the need to end or “manage” the conflicts problem as industry influence over scientific research inflates to unprecedented levels. Perhaps the best place to start to remedy the problem is at the NAS, America’s most eminent scientific research body. Since the NAS conducts research at the behest of the federal government, what it does very much affects lawmakers, policy-makers, regulatory agencies, and the general public. Hence, its policies and practices must be especially sensitive to preserving integrity and the public trust. The NAS record is not, however, as good as it needs to be.

Last April, for example, an NAS panel issued a report on genetically engineered crops. That report’s integrity was questioned because at least eight of the 12 panel members had financial ties to related industries, including ties to biotechnology and pesticide companies, and several members critiqued the very regulatory plan that their former employer (EPA) had adopted.

A year earlier, in April of 1999, that same committee’s imbalance, which was then even more heavily weighted in favor of industry, generated considerable public protest. As a result, an environmentalist was added. Still, the report’s overall credibility was jeopardized when an NAS staffer who had directed the Committee’s proceedings left midway through the study to work for a biotechnology trade group.

Unfortunately, these kind of controversies have swirled around the NAS for at least 20 years. For example, in 1980 its Food and Nutrition Board issued a report that concluded that otherwise-healthy Americans need not restrict their cholesterol consumption. The dubious advice became page-one news. Within a few days, however, it was widely reported that the board had strong ties to the food industry and that the author of the report was a paid consultant to the American Egg Board.

Such controversies notwithstanding, an NAS pamphlet states: “The credibility of a report can be weakened if the committee that produced it is perceived to be biased. Potential sources of bias and conflict of interest are significant issues that are taken into consideration in the selection of committee members.” Moreover, the NAS asks all potential committee members to fill out a “Potential Sources of Bias and Conflict of Interest” form. That is a start, but it does not remedy the problem.

Even with such policies in place, the makeup of some NAS committees continues to be tilted in favor of big business, this by way of industry representatives and professors with industry ties. What little is revealed about conflicts is only that which the NAS believes “merits disclosure.” Hence, disclosure is too often optional. The resulting problem is twofold: first, the subjective determination of what exactly constitutes a “conflict”; and second, the random practice of disclosure, which is not always complete.

To protect the public trust, there must be greater balance in the makeup of committee membership, and full, meaningful, and timely disclosure of potential biases of committee members. Whatever else the NAS may do, that must be the uniform rule, not the occasional practice.

In an open society, full disclosure must be the goal. The hope is that a balance of views, combined with full and meaningful disclosure, will enable scientists at the NAS to provide the public, press, and policy-makers with the best advice about scientific issues. Openness at the NAS could serve as a salutary example to congressional committees, science journals, universities, and other places where credibility must be nurtured.