Discussion 257 Private companies may have commercial interest in research outcomes, such as owning intellectual property or having a financial stake in commercializing research outcomes. Conflicts between company (shareholder) incentives and academic integrity lurk. But it would be overly simplistic to dismiss all public-private partnerships outright. Not all such partnerships are inherently problematic, and there are means to mitigate the risks associated with conflict of interests.29 The collaboration funding this thesis was contractually designed to limit private influence.25 We relied on the private partner to provide in-depth and practical market knowledge, whist relying on public partners to ensure the subsequent research was conducted independently. We presented our results in peer-reviewed journals to provide an additional safeguard to prioritize scientific merit over commercial interests, and our research has been published in open access papers. myTomorrows was not involved in any of the decisions regarding study design and methodology. We retained full autonomy in disseminating research findings, regardless of the outcome. Exemplary, we repeatedly suggested to harmonize European pathways in favor of patient access,19,30 even though this goes against the commercial interests of myTomorrows as the company benefits from navigating the complex array of European pathways. We attempted to adhere to all principles of transparency, publishing all our code to replicate our findings online, and rendering all data sets available upon request to replicate or check our findings. Furthermore, we have declared all potential interests, whether they are directly related or not, as per the relevant journal publication guidelines. These conflicts range from receiving public funding to conduct research or provide financial compensation for travel cost, to receiving salary fees, stock or stock options by myTomorrows, to receiving payments by regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical industry to host educational sessions on expanded access. In spite of these good intentions, it might be naive to believe all private interests have been diverted. It is exactly through this private experience that our academic research is inspired. The potential for residual conflict of interest should be interpreted by the nature of the field of research. Collaborations in the quantitative fields of research that rely on formal language and verifiable findings, such as mathematics, econometrics, or (bio)statistics, are arguable less susceptible to damage scientific reputation compared with more qualitative fields of research that may rely on interpretation and subjective judgement, such as cultural studies or fiscal policy. Arguably, it can be desirable to nourish public-scientific research in the field of nanotechnology, where the exchange of ideas between universities and chip companies serves a greater public interest. Simultaneously, it can be undesirable for fiscal court rulings to be influenced by the opinions of professors that are simultaneously employed by defendants in the court room that stand to benefit from such rulings. The benefits and risks of such collaborations should be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw