How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?
How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12940-019-0527-x
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-04
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Bero, Lisa A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baur, Xaver;Soskolne, Colin L.;Bero, Lisa A.
背景科学，特别是职业和环境卫生的研究亚专业，正在被滥用。这种滥用会干扰政策的推进，因为这些政策依赖于保护公共健康的政策所需的合理证据。方法我们选择性地调查了独立的科学文献。此外，还考虑到了受人尊敬的国际科学家专业组织所作的努力，这些组织的工作重点是维护和改善公众健康。这篇评论是独一无二的，它不仅收集了关于职业和环境健康研究中重大偏见的事实依据，而且还收集了关于所使用的操纵机制的事实依据，以及保持科学诚实所需的方法。结果科学诚信的原则是尽可能客观地进行研究;它不能受到特殊利益的损害，其主要目标既不是寻求真理，也不是保护人类健康。有证据表明，由经济利益赞助的研究报告存在重大偏见风险。公司渎职的做法包括：有计划地用行业辩护者污染同行审查的科学期刊的编辑委员会;干扰从事保障职业和公共健康的国家管理机构和国际审查小组的活动;利用不确定性设置障碍，破坏对迫切需要的政府管制致癌、内分泌干扰和/或免疫毒性剂的科学共识;推行“因果关系”标准，这种标准缺乏依据，实际上阻碍了工人对职业暴露造成的伤害获得法律的补救，从而导致发病和过早死亡;违反职业行为标准，以金钱奖励引诱声誉良好的科学家，使他们对公司议程负有责任。结论：精心策划的对科学的攻击有增无减，现在必须予以迎头痛击。通过促进和保护研究的完整性，可以取得成功。此外，还需要避免相互冲突的公司附属机构对职业和公共卫生条例产生影响。为了保护研究的完整性，需要识别、管理、最好是消除企业对科学和科学政策的影响。保护公众健康、预防疾病和促进福祉必须成为职业和环境健康研究的明确目标。
Background The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health. Methods We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest. Results Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting "causation" criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers' access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas. Conclusions Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public's health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.