We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships.

Besley, John C. and McCright, Aaron M. and Zahry, Nagwan R. and Elliott, Kevin C. and Kaminski, Norbert E. and Martin, Joseph D. (2017) 'Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships.', PLoS ONE., 12 (4). e0202392.


University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people’s willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(CVoR) Corrected Version of Record
Available under License - Creative Commons Attribution.
Download PDF (Corrected version 10th August 2018 )
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:© 2017 Besley et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Date accepted:No date available
Date deposited:04 October 2019
Date of first online publication:2017
Date first made open access:04 October 2019

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar