LAUSR

Rodwin (2018) claimed that a) the (financial) conflict of interest is a “legal concept” providing a practical tool to “regulate conduct” and b) the tentative for including “so-called intellectual” (i.e., non-financial) conflicts is an error. This deserves robust comment. First, the issue is not about concepts, but about real life. Rodwin’s previous book about financial conflicts in medicine, despite being 392 pages, overlooked several key issues, such as lobbying, key opinion leader, and disease mongering (Braillon 2011). Second, “conflicts of interest” are not “practical legal tools,” but a devastating lever for the industry to lobby for its vested interests. Third, considering that non-financial conflicts are not conflicts is a major setback. Nature introduced its financial interest policy for authors in 2001. Nature just implemented a policy about non-financial conflicts for authors, reviewers, and its staff (Nature 2018). “Non-financial competing interests can include a range of personal and/or professional relationships with organizations and individuals, including membership of governmental, nongovernmental, advocacy or lobbying organizations, or serving as an expert witness” (Nature 2018). There is increasing scrutiny of the scientific process. Nature’s wise policy is the best move forward to maintain public trust. Last, it is common sense that, when ethics compete with other interests, whatever they could be, victory is never for ethics.