At the Boston meeting, the issue of allowing members of ABRF who are employed by corporations (termed Vendors) that sell instrumentation and reagents to biomolecular resource facilities to serve on ABRF's Research Committees was raised and subsequently discussed extensively through our electronic mailing list. From these discussions, it appears that opinion is divided on whether Vendor employees should be eligible for service. This issue is complicated by two concerns: the equitable treatment of vendors, especially those who are our corporate sponsors; and the appearance and reality of impartiality among committee members.
Many ABRF members who are Vendor employees have the scientific expertise to contribute significantly to our Research Committees but may experience conflicts of interest between ABRF's goals and their employer's goals. To some ABRF members, the straightforward solution of disqualifying Vendor employees from committee service is the best way to address this issue. Other members feel that these individuals have a great deal to offer to our programs and favor finding a way to include them.
The conflict of interest issue extends to all committee members, not just those employed by Vendors. No one would dispute the possibility or the appearance of an opportunity for unfair influence by Vendor employees on the Research Committees, but few would argue that they are the only scientists who may have potential conflicts. Academic facility directors often serve as paid consultants to Vendors, receive reduced prices or favorable purchase terms for their laboratories, or hold stock in these companies. Defining the companies that are to be considered inappropriate and the ones that are acceptable is also likely to stir debate.
Since the meeting the Executive Board has invested a great deal of time, thought, and study into this and has considered all comments that reached it. We feel that considerable additional thought and planning are required before a long-term solution can be developed. However, the Association cannot continue to function optimally while this issue is unresolved. The Executive Board has therefore decided on an interim policy, detailed below, and has committed itself to develop a comprehensive, long-term policy in the next few months.
The policy adopted by the Executive Board at its meeting on August 2, 1995 concerning service of ABRF members on Research Committees is that:
1. For the present, the status quo will be maintained; members currently serving and previously confirmed by the Executive Board may continue their service.
2. The Executive Board will not confirm for service any additional employees of commercial firms [Vendors] that supply equipment or reagents to biomolecular resource facilities until a comprehensive policy is in place.
3. A comprehensive policy concerning Vendors's employees and potential conflict of interest situations with other ABRF members will be drafted by the Executive Board, circulated widely to solicit input, and finalized at the time of the ABRF '96: Biomolecular Techniques meeting to be held March 30 - April 2, 1996 in San Francisco. We anticipate modifying the by-laws of the Association to include the requirements for committee membership. This change of the by-laws will require approval of the majority of the membership, which will be sought by mail ballot.
While the interim policy may not be entirely satisfying to ABRF members, the Executive Board felt that there is presently no basis to remove a Research Committee member who has been confirmed previously by the Executive Board and who has performed with scientific integrity and lack of bias. There is nothing in our present by-laws that prevents a Vendor employee from serving on a Research Committee, but this unwritten policy had been practiced until one year ago.
We wish to emphasize that at no time did any member of any Research Committee act inappropriately or in any way attempt to take advantage of or influence the outcome of our research activities. These actions by the Executive Board are not intended to indicate a concern that an impropriety has occurred. Given the degree of concern among our members, the Executive Board felt it would be unwise to propagate the problem while seeking a long-term resolution.
The Executive Board is committed to developing a comprehensive approach to these and related issues. We welcome your continuing input. The ABRF electronic mailing list has already facilitated communication and debate of this matter; a number of very well thought out statements have been posted. We encourage you to continue to voice your thoughts, either directly to members of the Executive Board (telephone numbers, fax numbers, and E-mail addresses are listed in the ABRF directory, on the ABRF Gopher server, and on page 1 of this newsletter) or through open discussion on the electronic mailing list (E-mail: abrf@aecom.yu.edu); for those who wish to remain anonymous, opinions may be voiced through the ombudsman (E-mail: ombudsmn@aecom.yu.edu). We believe the Association will be stronger for the time invested by each of us in developing a workable, equitable policy.
The Executive Board
Return to the The ABRF Home Page