As researchers, we are often required to disclose any conflicts of interest we might have, for instance, when submitting a paper to a journal, or when acting as reviewers of a research project at the request of a funding agency. Over the past few decades, the duty to declare conflicts of interest has become a normal component of academic life. However, the concept is sometimes misunderstood, especially by novel researchers who may mistakenly believe that the mere existence of such a conflict is per se a violation of ethical principles, which is not.

What is exactly a conflict of interest? And why it matters from the point of view of research integrity?

A conflict of interest in research can be defined as a situation in which an individual has “interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance, compromise the integrity of the research” (US National Academies of Science, Integrity in Scientific Research, 2002, p. 38). A key feature of this situation is that the same individual is involved in two competing interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the other and introduce bias in his or her professional judgement.

It is important to emphasize that a conflict of interest is a situation, and not a misconduct per se. Acknowledging a conflict of interest is not tantamount to admitting having done something wrong. Being placed in such a situation is not the same as being unethical. We all are (or may be) placed in such circumstances with regard to particular persons or institutions. The relevant ethical question is what we do with that situation because, if not dealt properly with, may leave doubts about the objectivity of our research or about our impartial involvement in a particular decision-making process.

Why do conflicts of interest in research matter? They matter because they can potentially clash with the purpose of scientific work itself. Science is generally characterised as the “search for truth”. Good scientists are guided by a genuine desire to pursue truth and impartial judgment, and by honesty in reporting and interpreting their research results. This means that scientific work should be as unbiased and objective as possible in the sense that non-scientific interests (financial or personal) should not play any significant role in the way in which the research work is conducted and its results are interpreted and presented.

Another reason of the importance of declaring conflicts of interest in research is transparency. At a time in which scientific activities are often under the suspicion of being primarily led by personal, political or financial interests rather than search for knowledge, scientists are urged to address preemptively such suspicion by displaying the highest possible degree of transparency. For instance, the names of sponsors of research projects must always be disclosed. This is especially important when sponsors are not public funding agencies, but profit oriented companies, which may be tempted to influence the research outcomes in a way that could increase their financial gain.

The interests that may compromise the researcher’s professional judgement and independence can be very varied and have different degrees of relevance in each case. Typical interests take the form of financial advantages and personal considerations (such as family and friendship relationships). For example, there is a conflict of interest if an investigator receives honorariums, consultancy fees, or funding from a pharmaceutical company while doing research on the efficacy of a drug produced by that same company. More problematic forms of conflict of interest happen when researchers participate in the selection of a procurement contract with a company where they or their relatives have a financial interest, or when peer review panel members have a close family or professional relationship with one of the applicants to a position or a grant.

How to deal with any of the abovementioned situations? The first step consists in disclosing the actual or potential conflict of interest to the relevant person or institution (for instance, the journal where the paper is submitted; the institution for which a report is prepared). In many cases, this would be sufficient and the researcher will not be required to abstain from being involved in that particular activity. A group of scientists working at the research unit of a vaccine manufacturer can of course publish a study about the efficacy of the vaccine produced by their employer. There are a priori no reasons to suspect that data have been manipulated or that any other form of scientific misconduct happened. Those scientists’ immediate experience with the drug production can provide very valuable and unique knowledge about that particular drug. However, the disclosure of the conflict of interest is always imperative, as it will warn readers about possible (even unconscious) bias that may affect the impartiality of the study and the objective interpretation of the research results.

Yet, in some other cases, the mere disclosure of the conflict of interest is not sufficient, and the individual has to completely abstain from being involved in that activity. This happens when the researcher has decision–making power regarding the activity in question. This is not restricted to situations in which the scientist has the final word in the decision, but also when he or she is playing an important advisory role that may decisively influence the final decision to be taken. For instance, PhD supervisors should abstain from serving as peer-reviewers of manuscripts submitted to journals by their own doctoral students; scientists cannot use their leading position in their research units to unduly influence the decision to buy supplies from companies in which they or their immediate family members have a direct financial interest.

In short, the duty to disclose any possible conflicts of interest is today a normal component of research practice. This requirement aims to prevent that research work is biased or unduly influenced by personal or financial interests that would jeopardise the impartial nature of scientific activity. At the same time, it serves the imperative of transparency towards readers and institutions to whom the scientific work is addressed.

However, such disclosure should not be interpreted in a negative way, as if it were a kind of confession that something wrong has happened or is likely to happen. Perhaps some work it is still to be done on the educational front in this area. We need to “normalise” even more the disclosure of conflicting (or rather competing) interests that researchers may experience in their work, and promote more effectively a culture of openness in this area.