{"title":"营养学中的利益冲突:分类思维与商业合作的污名化","authors":"David J Mela","doi":"10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is a high level of concern about the possible influence of commercial organizations on food-related research and professional bodies, including regulatory and advisory panels. This has contributed to an increased emphasis on the declaration and management of conflicts of interest (CoI) in the reporting, evaluation, and application of research in nutrition science. However, common perceptions of CoI in nutrition, and procedures for declaring and managing these, often lack intellectual rigor and consistency. This commentary highlights 3 main issues related to CoI in nutrition, particularly the emphasis on industry-related CoI relative to other sources of conflict and bias. <em>1</em>) Considerations of CoI in nutrition are largely limited to financial or collaborative links to the food industry, disregarding other important sources of influence such as intellectual allegiances or nonindustry financial and professional incentives. <em>2</em>) Associations with industry incur <em>ad hominem</em>, often punitive stigmatization of individuals and their research, and inappropriate downgrading or exclusion of evidence. This disproportionately affects expertise in the food and agricultural sciences, in which commercial collaborations are widely encouraged. <em>3</em>) These practices and related approaches to managing CoI are applied without due consideration of the nature of the conflicts and activities involved, the qualifications of individuals, or the availability of other, objective methods and guidance for assessing research quality and risks of bias. Overall, recognition of the nature and range of CoI in nutrition and approaches to their identification and management lack consistency and balance. A singular and strict focus specifically on industry-related CoI may paradoxically exacerbate rather than mitigate imbalance and bias in the field. This commentary outlines the underlying issues and the need for more comprehensive and nuanced approaches to the assessment, reporting, and management of CoI in nutrition.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10756,"journal":{"name":"Current Developments in Nutrition","volume":"8 8","pages":"Article 104413"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299124023473/pdfft?md5=ce11e46002775a46354fe5b0ee8eff57&pid=1-s2.0-S2475299124023473-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition: Categorical Thinking and the Stigma of Commercial Collaboration\",\"authors\":\"David J Mela\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is a high level of concern about the possible influence of commercial organizations on food-related research and professional bodies, including regulatory and advisory panels. This has contributed to an increased emphasis on the declaration and management of conflicts of interest (CoI) in the reporting, evaluation, and application of research in nutrition science. However, common perceptions of CoI in nutrition, and procedures for declaring and managing these, often lack intellectual rigor and consistency. This commentary highlights 3 main issues related to CoI in nutrition, particularly the emphasis on industry-related CoI relative to other sources of conflict and bias. <em>1</em>) Considerations of CoI in nutrition are largely limited to financial or collaborative links to the food industry, disregarding other important sources of influence such as intellectual allegiances or nonindustry financial and professional incentives. <em>2</em>) Associations with industry incur <em>ad hominem</em>, often punitive stigmatization of individuals and their research, and inappropriate downgrading or exclusion of evidence. This disproportionately affects expertise in the food and agricultural sciences, in which commercial collaborations are widely encouraged. <em>3</em>) These practices and related approaches to managing CoI are applied without due consideration of the nature of the conflicts and activities involved, the qualifications of individuals, or the availability of other, objective methods and guidance for assessing research quality and risks of bias. Overall, recognition of the nature and range of CoI in nutrition and approaches to their identification and management lack consistency and balance. A singular and strict focus specifically on industry-related CoI may paradoxically exacerbate rather than mitigate imbalance and bias in the field. This commentary outlines the underlying issues and the need for more comprehensive and nuanced approaches to the assessment, reporting, and management of CoI in nutrition.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Developments in Nutrition\",\"volume\":\"8 8\",\"pages\":\"Article 104413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299124023473/pdfft?md5=ce11e46002775a46354fe5b0ee8eff57&pid=1-s2.0-S2475299124023473-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Developments in Nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299124023473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Developments in Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299124023473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
人们高度关注商业组织对食品相关研究和专业机构(包括监管和咨询小组)可能产生的影响。这促使人们越来越重视在营养科学研究的报告、评估和应用过程中利益冲突(CoI)的申报和管理。然而,人们对营养学中利益冲突的普遍认识以及利益冲突的申报和管理程序往往缺乏严谨性和一致性。本评论强调了与营养学中的 CoI 相关的 3 个主要问题,尤其是相对于其他冲突和偏见来源而言,对与行业相关的 CoI 的重视。1) 对营养学领域共同利益的考虑主要局限于与食品行业的财务或合作关系,而忽视了其他重要的影响来源,如知识效忠或非行业财务和专业激励。2) 与食品行业的联系导致对个人及其研究的诋毁,往往是惩罚性的诋毁,以及对证据的不恰当降级或排斥。这对广泛鼓励商业合作的食品和农业科学领域的专业知识影响尤为严重。3) 在采用这些做法和相关方法来管理 "共同承担 "时,没有适当考虑所涉及的冲突和活动的性质、个人的资格,也没有考虑是否有其他客观的方法和指导来评估研究质量和偏见风险。总体而言,对营养学中冲突影响的性质和范围的认识以及识别和管理冲突影响的方法缺乏一致性和平衡性。单独严格关注与行业相关的 CoI 可能会加剧而不是减轻该领域的不平衡和偏差。本评论概述了根本问题,以及对营养领域共同营养信息的评估、报告和管理采取更全面、更细致方法的必要性。
Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition: Categorical Thinking and the Stigma of Commercial Collaboration
There is a high level of concern about the possible influence of commercial organizations on food-related research and professional bodies, including regulatory and advisory panels. This has contributed to an increased emphasis on the declaration and management of conflicts of interest (CoI) in the reporting, evaluation, and application of research in nutrition science. However, common perceptions of CoI in nutrition, and procedures for declaring and managing these, often lack intellectual rigor and consistency. This commentary highlights 3 main issues related to CoI in nutrition, particularly the emphasis on industry-related CoI relative to other sources of conflict and bias. 1) Considerations of CoI in nutrition are largely limited to financial or collaborative links to the food industry, disregarding other important sources of influence such as intellectual allegiances or nonindustry financial and professional incentives. 2) Associations with industry incur ad hominem, often punitive stigmatization of individuals and their research, and inappropriate downgrading or exclusion of evidence. This disproportionately affects expertise in the food and agricultural sciences, in which commercial collaborations are widely encouraged. 3) These practices and related approaches to managing CoI are applied without due consideration of the nature of the conflicts and activities involved, the qualifications of individuals, or the availability of other, objective methods and guidance for assessing research quality and risks of bias. Overall, recognition of the nature and range of CoI in nutrition and approaches to their identification and management lack consistency and balance. A singular and strict focus specifically on industry-related CoI may paradoxically exacerbate rather than mitigate imbalance and bias in the field. This commentary outlines the underlying issues and the need for more comprehensive and nuanced approaches to the assessment, reporting, and management of CoI in nutrition.