Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest is a conflict between a persons duties and responsibilities with

regard to the review process, and that persons private, professional, business or
public interests. There may be a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest when
the review committee member, external reviewer or observer:

would receive professional or personal benefit resulting from the funding

opportunity or application being reviewed;

has a professional or personal relationship with an applicant or the

applicants institution; or

has a direct or indirect financial interest in a funding opportunity or

application being reviewed.

A conflict of interest may be deemed to exist or perceived as such when review

committee members, external reviewers or observers:

are a relative or close friend, or have a personal relationship with the

applicants;

are in a position to gain or lose financially/materially from the funding of the

application;

have had long-standing scientific or personal differences with the

applicants;

are currently affiliated with the applicants institutions, organizations or

companiesincluding research hospitals and research institutes;

are closely professionally affiliated with the applicants, as a result of having

in the last six years:
o

frequent and regular interactions with the applicants in the course of

their duties at their department, institution, organization or company;
been a supervisor or a trainee of the applicants;

collaborated, published or shared funding with the applicants, or

have plans to do so in the immediate future; or,

been employed by the institution, when an institution is the

applicant; and/or

Feel for any reason unable to provide an impartial review of the application.

Note: For trainee awards committees, these criteria also apply to the relationship
with the proposed supervisor.
CIHR reserves the right to resolve areas of uncertainty and to determine if a conflict
exists.

Confidentiality
CIHR subject to the Privacy Act, and the Access to Information Act. These laws
govern the collection, use and disclosure of information under the control of the
federal government and certain federally funded organizations. Documentation
submitted to CIHR by the applicant may be provided to the review committee
members, external reviewers and observers. The documentation may contain
personal information and confidential commercial information. By law, applicants
have the right of access to the information provided by review committee members
and external reviewers about their applications. The names of external reviewers
must be kept confidential to ensure they can provide an impartial review of an
application. Review committee members names can be released at the discretion
of CIHR. Written materials used in the review process are generally made available
to applicants when they are notified of the funding opportunity results.
Review committee members, external reviewers and observers must ensure that:

all documentation and information that CIHR entrusts to review committee

members, external reviewers and observers is maintained in strict confidence
at all times. It must be used only for the purpose for which it was originally
collectednamely, to review applications and make funding
recommendations as applicable;

review documentation is stored in a secure manner to prevent unauthorized

access. It must be transmitted using secure techniques and when it is no
longer required, it must be destroyed in a secure manner. Any loss or theft of
the documentation must be reported to CIHR; and

all enquiries or representations received by review committee members,

external reviewers or observers about an application or its review must be
referred to CIHR. Review committee members, external reviewers or

observers must not contact the applicants for additional information or

disclose matters arising from the review process to the applicants.
Additional requirements for review committee members and observers:

Review deliberations are confidential. Comments made by review

committee members during the review of applications and the conclusions of
the committees review must never be discussed or disclosed with individuals
not involved in the review process unless required by legislation or the
courts.

The identity of successful applicants and the details of the grants/awards

must remain confidential until a decision is made by CIHR and officially
announced to the applicants and the public. The identities of unsuccessful or
ineligible applicants are not made public and must not be divulged unless
required by legislation or the courts.

During the meeting, observers must be as unobtrusive as possible to

minimize disruption and must not remove from the meeting room written
notes or documentation related to reviewer assignments, ratings or reviewer
comments on applications.

Confirmation
I have read and understood the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement. I
agree to comply with the requirements of the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality
Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations. (Additional information can
be found in procedural guidelines for the specific review process.) I understand that
any breach of this agreement will result in a review of the matter, with CIHR
reserving the right to take appropriate action including, but not limited to, my
removal from serving on or observing current or future CIHR review committees or
from serving as an external reviewer. The use of review documentation for any
other purpose could result in a CIHR investigation and/or report to the federal
Privacy Commissioners Office. Any action that CIHR may or may not take will not
prevent a person whose privacy rights have been compromised from seeking legal
action against the respondent. By signing this form, I certify that I am not currently
ineligible to apply for and/or hold funds from the Canada Foundation for Innovation
(CFI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) or any other research or research
funding organization worldwide for reasons of breach of policies on responsible
conduct of research-such as ethics, integrity or financial management policies. I also
certify that I am not currently under investigation for a breach of the CFIs, CIHRs,
NSERCs or SSHRCs policies. If I become the subject of such an investigation, I will
immediately withdraw from participation in the CIHR review process(es) until the

investigation is complete and CIHR has determined that I am once again eligible to
participate

6.2 Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

6.2.1 Confidential: Definition
The duty of confidentiality is the duty to keep secret all information
deemed desirable to keep secret. Deemed by whom? Basically, it is any
information that the employer or client would like to have kept secret to
compete effectively against business rivals. Often this is understood to be
any data concerning the companys business or technical processes that are
not already public knowledge. Although this criterion is somewhat vague, it
clearly point to the employer or client as the main source of the decision as to
what information is to be treated as confidential.
Keep secret is a relational expression. It always make sense to ask,
Secret with respect to whom? In the case of some government
organizations, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), highly elaborate systems for classifying information
have been access to what information. Within other government agencies
and private companies, engineers and other employees are usually expected
to withhold information labeled confidential from unauthorized people both
inside and outside the organization.
6.2.2 Confidentiality and Changing Jobs
The obligation to protect confidential information does not cease to
pretext such information. Former employees would quickly divulge it to their
new employers or, perhaps for a price, sell it to competitor of their former
employers. Thus, the relationship of trust between employer and employee in
regard to confidentiality continues beyond the formal period of employment.
Unless the employer gives consent, former employees are barred indefinitely
from revealing trade secrets. This provides a clear illustration of the way in
which the professional integrity of the engineers involves much more than
mere loyalty to ones present employer.
Yet thorny problems arise in this area. Many engineers value
professional advancement more than long-term ties with any on company,
and so they change jobs frequently. Engineers in research and development
are especially likely to have high rates of turnover. They are the people most
likely to expose to important new trade secrets. Moreover, when they transfer
into new companies they often do the same kind of work as before precisely
the type os situation in which trade secrets of their old companies may have
relevance, a fact that could have strongly contributed to their having readily
found new employment.
6.2.3 Confidentiality and Management Policies
What might be done to recognize the legitimate personal interests and
rights of engineers and other employees while also recognizing the rights of

employers in this area? One approach is to use employment contracts that

place special restrictions centered on the geographical location of future
employers, the length of time after leaving the present employer before one
can engage in certain kinds of work, and the type of work it is permissible to
do for future employers. Thus, Goodrich might have required as a condition of
employment what Wohlgemuth sign an agreement that if he sought work
elsewhere he would not work on space suit projects for a competitor in the
United States for five years after leaving Goodrich.
Yet such contracts are hardly agreements between equals, and they
threaten the right of individuals to pursue their careers freely. For this reason
the courts have tended not to recognize such contracts as binding, although
they do uphold contractual agreements forbidding the disclosure of trade
secrets.
6.2.4 Confidentiality: Justification
On what moral basis the confidentiality obligation rest, with its wide
scope and obvious importance? The primary justification is to respect the
autonomy (freedom, self-determination) of individuals and corporations and
to recognize their legitimate control over some private information
concerning themselves. Without that control, they could not maintain their
privacy and protect their self-interest insofar as it involves privacy. Just as
patients should be allowed to maintain substantial control over personal
information, so employers should have some control over the private
information about their companies. All the major ethical theories recognize
the importance of autonomy, whether it is understood in terms of rights to
autonomy, duties to respect autonomy, the utility (as in utilitarian ethics) of
protecting autonomy, or the virtues of respect for others.
6.2.5 Conflicts of Interest: Definition and Examples
We turn now some equally thorny issues concerning conflicts of
interest.
Professional conflicts of interest are situations where professionals have
An interest that, if pursued, might keep them from meeting their obligations
to other employees or clients. Sometimes such an interest involves in some
other professional role, say, as a consultant for a competitors company.
Other times it is more personal interest, such as making substantial private
investments in a competitors company.
Concern about conflicts of interest largely centers on their potential to
distort good judgement in faithfully serving an employer or client. Exercising
good judgement means arriving at beliefs on the basis of expertise and
experience, as opposed to merely following simple rules. Thus, we can refine
our definition of conflicts of interest by saying that they typically arise when
two conditions are met: (1) the professional is in a relationship or role that
requires exercising good judgement on behalf of the interests of an employer
or client, and (2) the professional has some additional or side interests that
could threaten good judgment in serving the interests of the employer or
client- either the good judgement of a typical professional in that situation.
Why the reference to a typical professional? there might be conclusive

evidence that the actual persons involved would never allow a side interest to
affect their judgement, yet they are still in a conflict of interest.

6.2.6 Moral Status of Conflicts of Interest

What is wrong with employees having conflicts of interest? Most of the
answer is obvious from our definition: Employee conflicts of interest occur when
employees have interests that if pursued could keep them from meeting their
obligations to serve the interests of the employer or client for whom they work.
Such conflicts of interest should be avoided because they threaten to prevent one
from fully meeting those obligations.
More needs to be said, however. Why should mere threats of possible harm
always be condemned? Suppose that substantial good might sometimes result from
pursuing a conflict of interest.
In fact, it is not always unethical to pursue conflicts of interest. In practice,
some conflicts are thought to be unavoidable, or even acceptable. One illustration
of this is that the government allows employees of aircraft manufacturers, such as
Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, to serve as government inspectors for the Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA). The FAA is charged with regulating airplane manufacturers
and making objective safety and quality inspections of the airplanes they build.
Naturally the dual roles-government inspector and employee of the manufacturer
being inspected could bias judgements. Yet with careful screening of inspectors,
the like hood of such bias is said to be outweighed by the practical necessities of
airplane inspection.
6.3 Rights of Engineers
6.3.1 Professional Rights
We turn to respect for the rights of engineers and others. Engineers have
several types of moral rights, which fall into the sometimes overlapping categories
of human, employee, contractual, and professional rights. As humans, engineers
have fundamental rights to live and freely pursue their legitimate interests, which
implies, for example, rights not to be unfairly discriminated against in employment
on the basis of sex, race, or age. As employees, engineers have special rights,
including the right to receive ones salary in return for performing ones duties and
the right to engage in the nonwork political activities of ones choosing without
reprisal or coercion from employers. As professionals, engineers have special rights
that arise from their professional role and the obligations it involves. We begin with
professional rights.
6.3.2 Employee Right
Employee rights are any rights, moral or legal, that involve the status of
being an employee. They overlap with some professional rights, of the sort just
discussed, and they also include institutional rights created by organizational
policies or employment agreements, such as the right to be paid the salary

specified in ones contract. However, here we will focus on human rights that exist
even if unrecognized by specific contract arrangements.
Many of these human rights are discussed more fully in Freedom Inside the
Organization by David Ewing who, as editor of The Harvard Business Review was
very much part of the business mainstream. Ewing refers to employee right as the
black hole in American rights. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was written to
apply to government, not to business. But when the Constitution was written, no
one envisaged the giant corporations that have emerged in our century.
Corporations wield enormous power politically and socially, often in multinational
settings; they operate much as mini-governments, and they are often comparable in
size to those governments the authors of the Constitution had in mind. For example,
American Telephone & Telegraph in the 1970s employed twice the number of people
that inhabited the largest of the original 12 colonies when the Constitution was
written.
Ewing proposes that large corporations ought to recognize a basic set of
employee rights. As examples we will discuss rights to privacy and to equal
opportunity.