A task force of the American Psychological Association has recommended that its 148,000 members turn their nose up at pharma funds; limit the role industry plays at professional conferences, meetings and CME sessions; and adopt strict guidelines on conflict-of-interest disclosure, according to a primer published in the American Psychologist (take a peek).

And to get its readers in the right mood, they authors offer this quote: “You shall not pervert judgment, you shall not favor someone’s presence, and you shall not accept a bribe, for the bribe will blind the eyes of the wise and make just words crooked.” - Deuteronomy 16:19, Laws of Judges

Here are a few of the many recommendations: External funds should never be a part of APA’s oerating or core budget, including both direct and indirect costs; all raw data for any study published in a psychology journal should be made available to any qualified scientist, allowing for independent review of data and data analyses; the APA should consider not offering CME credits for industry-funded courses; Psychologists shouldn’t display drug-related advertising material in their place of work, and there should be guidelines or educational materials to assist psychologists in understanding and knowing how to identify possible front organizations and to assist with the ethical issues involved in negotiating contracts with corporations.

“We anticipate that corporate funding will become more of an issue for psychologists in the future for several reasons,” the task force concludes.

“The increasing influence of large corporations in daily life, the likelihood of increasing numbers of prescribing psychologists, the aging of the population of the US, and the potential increase in markets for pharmaceutical products aimed at behavioral and mental health problems are trends that are likely to bring issues of corporate funding closer to the work of psychologists.

“Policies at the association level can provide an example and support for psychologists who grapple with the tensions between funding and the independence or integrity of their own work in their roles as scientists, practitioners, and educators. APA’s leadership in this area could also serve as a
constructive model to other professional and scientific associations.”

Want to read the complete report? Go here.

Hat tip to Integrity in Science Watch