营养学中的利益冲突:分类思维与商业合作的污名化

IF 3.8 Q2 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Current Developments in Nutrition Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104413
David J Mela
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Developments in Nutrition
Current Developments in Nutrition NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
4.20%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Dairy Intake in Relation to Prediabetes and Continuous Glycemic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies Maternal Anemia during Pregnancy and Infant Birth Outcomes: A Prospective Cohort Study in Eastern Maharashtra, India Knowledge, Behavior, and Influencing Factors of Coarse Grain Consumption among Chinese Adults: A Focus Group Study in Xi’an Health Claims, Product Features and Instructions for Use on the Labels of Potassium-enriched Salt Products: A Content Analysis Using Less Processed Food to Mimic a Standard American Diet Does Not Improve Nutrient Value and May Result in a Shorter Shelf Life at a Higher Financial Cost
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1