Role of conflict of interest in scientific objectivity

Abstract

The “objectivity”; of leading scientists is examined in light of their citations of other people's work when they are presenting their own work. Can “direct competitors”; be “objective”; in their views regarding historical credits? Can the reward system be influenced by bias citation? In this paper, we have examined the work of Brown and Goldstein on Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH), which led to their sharing the Nobel Prize in 1985. As an illustrative example of citations, we have analyzed the important contributions of Khachadurian to this work and have looked at how these • contributions were cited by Brown and Goldstein. We show evidence that Khachadurian was a major contributor to the discoveries which led to the diagnosis and mechanism of FH. However, it appears that only part of these discoveries were adequately cited by Brown and Goldstein. Moreover, the part of the work that was not adequately cited by Brown and Goldstein may have contributed to inadequate citation by everyone else in the scientific community. The evidence indicates that Khachadurian's work deserves greater recognition. It is argued that scientists of high moral character and integrity are susceptible to bias when dealing with their own work. It is then argued that prudence suggests that leading scientists who are “direct competitors”; cannot be assumed to be completely “objective”; when presenting their own work.

Keywords:

• conflict of interest
• scientific objectivity
• Nobel Prize
• research
• Brown
• Goldstein
• Khachadurian
• atherosclerosis
• literature citation
• reward system