This factsheet is currently being prepared by the Responsible Science team. It will provide an overview of the topic, explain its relevance to responsible research, and include practical guidance and further resources.
We appreciate your patience as we continue to develop the website.
Conflicts of interest exist in “a situation where an independent observer might reasonably conclude that the professional actions of a person are or may be unduly influenced by other interests.” [1] Perceptions of conflicts of interest are just as important as actual conflicts of interests. [2]
Avoiding and properly disclosing conflicts of interest is essential to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and reliability of research. Conflicts of interest can introduce bias into decision-making processes, potentially compromising research outcomes and, in serious cases, leading to misconduct or corruption. [3] Failing to properly manage actual and perceived conflicts of interest can erode public trust in science, generally, as well as in the individuals and organizations involved in a particular project. In this sense, proactive and responsible management of such conflicts is essential to preserving public trust. [1]
In Australia, researchers are required to adhere to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, which explicitly mandates ‘transparency in declaring interests.’ [1] Similarly, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has characterised a purposeful failure to disclose a conflict of interest as a form of research misconduct. [2] Together, these standards highlight the critical importance of openness and accountability in responsible research practice.
Case Study 1: A study by researchers at the University of Sydney, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that many Australian medical researchers failed to disclose payments from pharmaceutical companies. One in four researchers out of 120 trials had at least one undeclared conflict, averaging an undisclosed payment value of almost $9000. The disclosure of these payments is important because pharmaceutical industry funding is commonly associated with a bias towards favourable results for the tested product. [4]
Case Study 2: In another case, Shahar and Sayers (2018) published an article on abnormal bone growths protruding from the base of younger peoples’ skulls, which the researchers claimed was due to bad posture and phone use. [5] The initial research generated great concern, until closer scrutiny revealed an undeclared conflict of interest by the first author – a chiropractic clinician who provides posture related advice and products. [6] The paper was later edited to clarify these conflicts, and to redraft sections to emphasise that: genetic predisposition may be a factor; the data was taken retrospectively from a clinician’s database for individuals presenting only with mild symptomology; and “great care should be taken to avoid over generalising these results to an asymptomatic general population”.
Research ethics are ‘norms of conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour’ when performing scientific research. [1] Ethical conduct requires more than simply ‘doing the right thing’; it requires acting in the right spirit and with respect and concern for fellow human beings, animals, and the environment. [2] In Australia, obtaining ethics approval is mandatory for research involving human or animal participants.
Human research has contributed enormously to scientific breakthroughs. While much of this research carries minimal risk, some forms of human research can involve significant harm if conducted improperly. Historical examples demonstrate how serious ethical failures can lead to the violation of human rights, such as inappropriate and poor research practices that have been conducted in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. In recognition of these risks, ethics guidelines have been developed to ensure that interactions between researchers and participants are ethically acceptable to the Australian community, supported by laws that impose general and specific responsibilities on researchers and institutions and establish rights for participants.
Furthermore, ethics review of human research is not uniform; rather, it operates at different levels depending on the degree of risk involved. Ethics review processes also consider potential power imbalances between researchers and participants due to institutional affiliation, socioeconomic factors, or cultural context. Researchers are therefore expected to ensure that participation is voluntary, informed, and free from coercion or undue influence.
As part of the ethics application process, researchers are typically required to justify their study design, including providing a sample size estimate (depending on the research scope) or equivalent rationale to show that the study is methodologically sound and has sufficient statistical power to address the research question. This requirement reflects the ethical principle that research should avoid exposing participants to unnecessary burden or risk through underpowered or unnecessarily large studies. [3] [4]
Animal research has also been essential to scientific progress, yet it too can involve significant harm if not performed responsibly. Ethical frameworks exist to ensure that the use of animals in research is justified and reflects community expectations regarding animal welfare. Australian laws and institutional guidelines set clear responsibilities for researchers to minimise harm, apply ethical principles such as replacement, reduction, and refinement, and ensure that interactions between humans and animals meet accepted ethical standards. [5]
1. Determine whether your research requires ethical clearance prior to commencing research.
2. Refer to the procedure for ethics review established by your institution.
Case Study 1: Among contemporary examples, the Human Genome Diversity Project (HDGP), which took place between 1991 and 1997, is a well-known case of controversial and unethical research practices, famously labelled by Indigenous leaders in Australia (and many outside Australia) as “the vampire project”. The initiative was heavily criticized for portraying Indigenous Peoples as “Isolates of Historical Interest” whose genetic information needed to be harvested before they “vanished”. This project faced intense opposition due to its lack of adequate consultation and consent mechanisms, the immortalization of Indigenous cells, and significant concerns regarding biopiracy and the commercial exploitation of genetic material [9].
Case Study 2: A Monash University study that exposed adolescent female rats to non-fatal strangulation and traumatic brain injury to model intimate partner violence has drawn strong ethical criticism. Supporters argue the animal model offers important insights into brain tissue that cannot be analysed in living humans. However, critics question whether the severe suffering and oxygen deprivation inflicted on the animals can be justified when non-animal methods, such as neuroimaging and computational models, are available. [10]
Authorship order is one of the main ways scientific credit is distributed and interpreted. Positions such as first, last, and corresponding author are often used to infer contribution, leadership, responsibility, and seniority. As a result, authorship order can influence hiring, promotion, funding opportunities, professional visibility, and career progression.
Because particular authorship positions have acquired significant value, discussions about authorship order are often sensitive and contested. At the same time, the meaning attached to these positions is not universal. Different disciplines rely on different conventions, and collaborators may hold different expectations about who should occupy particular positions and what those positions represent. When these assumptions remain implicit, authorship order can become a source of misunderstanding, disagreement, or tension within research teams.
Authorship order is often treated as a straightforward representation of contribution. This assumes that different forms of work can be compared, arranged in a single sequence, and interpreted consistently by collaborators, readers, and evaluators.
In practice, these assumptions do not always hold. Different disciplines use different conventions, contributions may be difficult to compare directly, and the same authorship order may be understood in different ways.
Authorship order is often treated as the outcome of a project. However, teams may benefit from discussing how authorship order will be determined. Making expectations, criteria, and decision-making processes explicit can help reduce misunderstandings and support more transparent discussions about recognition and credit.
Questions that may be useful to discuss include:
Because authorship order distributes recognition and opportunity, all contributors share responsibility for ensuring that the process is understood and open to discussion.
The CLEAR Lab, led by Max Liboiron, developed an “Equity in Author Order” protocol to support discussions about authorship order. Rather than beginning with individual authors, the process starts by identifying the forms of labour that made the project possible and discussing which contributions were most central to the work. The team then maps contributors to these forms of labour and collectively discusses how authorship order should be established. The protocol also encourages researchers to reflect on how different forms of work are recognised and how existing inequalities may shape authorship decisions.