Last weekend I wrote an article for Impact Ethics titled: “Being and Becoming Compromised: Conflicts of Interest in Bioethics“:
What is it that makes a conflict of interest more problematic than mere partiality? The answer, Rob MacDougall wants to argue, is “nothing.” Accepting money to argue on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry is no different than protecting the vulnerable; it doesn’t matter to which group you are partial, or why.
My article was a response to a post by Rob MacDougall, who argued that there is nothing problematic—in fact, that there is something right—about bioethicists advocating on behalf of (among others) pharmaceutical companies, and being paid to do so. “Being and Becoming Compromised” is the last in a series of articles on the topic; the other responses are listed below:
- Rob MacDougall’s original post—”Industry Funding and Partiality in Bioethics“
- Carl Elliott’s response—”On Pharma-Funded Ethicists“
- Alice Dreger’s response—”Judging Souls Versus Acts in Bioethics“
- Kelly Hills’ response—”Corruption in a Bioethics Free-For-All“
I—being clearly partial to these articles, though perhaps not compromised to the extent that I have a conflict of interest—recommend that you go and give them a read.
