Michael Sharpe skewered by @JohntheJack on Twitter

Fair enough, sounds very familiar in politics

In answer to your original query i suspect the expression power corrupts would apply.

This may be relevant/interesting
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/10/18/13285196/2016-trump-clinton-psychology-power

 

There's conflict of interest and then there's bias, they're different but overlapping constructs.

People tend to think of pharma money when they think of coi, but that's only one type of coi. We should be much, much more concerned about other, more subtle ones. They are really messing with our science.

The concept of COI is that you have a greater chance of a future reward if the outcome goes one way than if it goes another.
- If you design a study so that you will only get funds to complete it if the initial results go a certain way, then that's a COI.
- If one particular outcome would reduce your chances of getting other grants in the future (e.g., the DWP won't give you any more money), then that's a COI.
- If your next job promotion depends on whether you publish the study in a prestigious journal, and the likelihood of that is greater if you get a certain outcome (which it often is), then that's a COI.
- if you stand to get more fame, royalties, paid travel, book deals, or more therapy clients if the outcome goes a certain way, then that's a COI.

Its not a COI if you get the benefit irrespective of study outcome.

A COI does not occur just because you believe in one outcome as more likely than the other. At the core of a COI is probable future reward beyond the research itself. Belief can still cause bias though, massive bias, but that's different from a coi.

So a COI causes bias, but not all bias is due to a COI.

 

Bias is fascinating. Looking at Psychology's replication crisis, I've noticed the sources of bias are different across different fields.

In Social Psychology, the bias is caused by people wanting to get published in high profile journals and get their names in the papers. Sexy, eye-catching stuff gets rewarded. Usually the outcome has to go a certain way for that (ie. there's a definite COI). So you get "Sad people really do get the blues: Feeling sad selectively enhances attention to short wavelength light" (no lie! although the real title was not exactly that).

In Clinical Psychology, the bias is caused by strong theoretical allegiances to particular approaches or views. So you get "Training depressed people not to look at sad pictures relieves their depression" (because CBT for depression is based on the idea that negative attentional biases and negative thoughts cause depression). This one also not a lie! Sometimes, there's a COI here too (if you stand to get more clientele if the outcome goes a certain way), but sometimes its just sheer belief that causes the bias.

Both the studies I described above were absolute bullshit when you gave them even a cursory look over. Noone bothered to. Because often the readers, citers and promoters of the works have their own biases which just happen to align. "Sad people really do get the blues" sells good copy. "Positive attentional training eases depression" appeals to every psyc wanting to show that the ideas underlying CBT for depression are evidence-based.

We just tend not to spend too much time looking at the results that went the way we thought they would.

 

They're not, they know full well the rules but don't abide by them and they get away with it.

 

aka: Decision based, evidence making (not to be confused with evidence based, decision making)

 

But if those COI were not declared to the participants at the start of the trial when they signed up to it, and then once the trial results were published they find COI are declared, that's akin to some kind of breach of contract.

 

And in the sense that a contract legally committed to was then changed under the feet of those engaging in that contract prior to its completion, and without any notification to those participating in that contract, so thereby denying them a legal right surely.

 

Quite.

Also the PACE practitioners who carried out CBT/GET, were they told of the conflicts of interest?

The GP's who referred patients?

Th ethics committee members?

 

General question, does anyone know what happens when researchers apply for any MRC ( or other ) grant, do they not have to declare any COI right there, at the start, to ensure they are eligible for the grant in the first place?

So in the case of PACE might there be evidence of disclosure of COI right at the start of the process?

And if not why not?

 

This is the current Guidance for Applicants to MRC but I don't know how much it might have changed.
I'm guessing though that the COI section would have applied pretty much as is.

https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/guidance-for-applicants/

"What interests should be declared?" page 9

 

Is itjust me, or are those MRC guidelines defective. On second thoughts, I know I am.

1.4.4. on p9 provides for disclosure of "Unremunerated involvement with any organisation named in the grant or which might benefit from the outcome of the research that are not mentioned in the application..."

It should surely provide elsewhere for remunerated involvement, but I cannot see it. But there is a catch all general provision.

 

Yes, and the COI of the DWP who gave a considerable grant to PACE?

 

Yes I see.

 

Also, is there nothing built into a trial protocol (including ethics etc), dictating what the correct procedure is if COI arise during the course of the trial? This stuff should be laid down in formal legally binding procedures, not random scribblings on the back of a cigarette packet.

 

I've lost track. Do we know whether or not the PACE authors declared COI to the MRC?