Conflict of Interest the Other Way

Email Print

constant beef of critics of various regulatory panels is that their
members have financial ties to industry. For example, a recent piece
in The New York Times made much of the fact that the FDA
panel that didn’t demand that all anti-pain drugs be pulled off
the market had 10 members who had “industry ties.” Written by Gardiner
Harris and Alex Berenson, in the February 25th issue of The Times,
the article, “10 Voters on Panel Backing Pain Pills Had Industry
Ties,” lamented the fact that not all the members of the panel were
completely independent of firms in the industry they were asked
to oversee. It is typical of the pro-regulation media to keep insisting
that anyone who has ever done any consulting for an industry must
be biased in favor of that industry. While there can be some justified
concern here, not unless there is evidence of bias is there warrant
for indicting these people for any malfeasance.

Of course, the FDA or any other regulatory agency is going to appoint
people to panels who know their stuff, and such people are bound
to have had some connection with the industry they know. Drug firms,
for example, need expert advice and they get such advice from university
professors who will also likely to be asked by government to oversee
the regulatory process. Does it follow necessarily that such people
will blindly favor the interest of those in the industry that has
hired them in the past? Of course not. But it is always tempting
to impugn their integrity by such association. If they have worked
for the industry, they must be biased. It doesn’t, however, follow
by a long shot.

Now what is interesting is that the same media that is jumping all
over the people who have worked for various firms in a certain industry,
claiming these people are basically corrupt, does not ever consider
those in the academic world as being suspect of special interests.
Yet, most people in the academy work for government. Even the most
prestigious private universities, like Harvard or Princeton, get
gobs of money from the feds, to do research, produce papers on this
or that topic of “public interest,” consult about public policy,
etc. These folks are deeply beholden to government. It is virtually
their bread and butter — or at least their considerable extra
pocket change. Without the government associations they would not
be invited to innumerable conferences, asked to publish in various
journals, contribute to encyclopedias, write text books, do peer
reviews, sit on agency panels, and so forth.

In other words, the bulk of so-called independent scholars aren’t
independent at all — they owe their soul to the company store,
which is the government of the United States of America or, in many
cases, their state governments. Yet few news organizations call
these folks, with evident links to governments, to task for their
conflict of interest. Why?

This is the governmental habit that a few people have managed to
write about. Yet they have also managed to be ignored, to a large
extent. Jonathan R. T. Hughes penned his book, Governmental
Habit Redux: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present

(Princeton University Press, 1991), so as to call attention to this
fact but, alas, grand media outlets like The New York Times
pay scant attention to their message.

The fact is that innumerable professors throughout the most prestigious
universities of this and many other countries are avid supporters
of government regulations and supervision of the private sector,
all of which require their very own professional "assistance."
They write the scholarly studies that show the need for all this
regulation and supervision. They supply the apologetics for the
expansion of government control of the economy and all the professions,
all the high-sounding rationales about equality, for abating of
poverty, for reduction for injustice via government controls, involving
the expansion of government’s scope in our lives.

Yet where is the mainstream media pointing out this conflict of
interest? Nowhere, that’s where. One may, then, call into question
all the moralistic concern with conflict of interest when it comes
to associations between experts and the industry they are being
asked to judge. After all, government is the biggest of all industries,
yet those who judge it, nearly all of them recipients of government’s
largesse, do not get their integrity called into question by the
same media that bellyaches about the alleged corruption in the private

I say, clean your own house, major media, before you start pointing

22, 2005

Machan [send
him mail
] is
R. C. Hoiles Professor of Free Enterprise & Business Ethics at the
Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, CA.
A Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
he is author of 20+ books, most recently, Objectivity:
Recovering Determinate Reality in Philosophy, Science, and Everyday

Machan Archives

Email Print