If a private company provides a grant for some research to be carried out but is hoping for a particular outcome from the research in order to take certain business decisions, should this be described as a conflict of interest?

  • 4
    A conflict of interest in what context? But, yeah, by and large it sounds like a conflict of interest (but not an uncommon one).
    – xLeitix
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 11:06
  • In the context that it should be described as such when publishing the results of the research i.e. should the paper describe who the grant was given by and why they gave it within a conflicts of interest sub-section?
    – Michael
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09
  • 2
    You definitely need to mention it in the paper. Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 13:04
  • 6
    Hoping for a particular outcome is not a conflict of interest. Paying for a particular outcome is.
    – JeffE
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 13:21
  • 3
    And it's not just private companies, it's ANY source of funding. If greenpeace funds your study into the effects of tuna fishing on the tuna population you can assume they want you to conclude that tuna fishing is bad for example, because it's a well known campaign platform for them to want to get it banned.
    – jwenting
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 13:35

5 Answers 5


I don't see this as a conflict of interest, but the issue itself is deserving of careful attention from both a contracts perspective and a scientific perspective. I would advise against any such funding source that puts restrictions on the publication of findings. In particular, you state that the business is "hoping for a particular outcome." Are you still allowed to publish results that are contrary to their expectations -- or, does the contract specifically state they have authority over what can and cannot be published. You will want your grants management officers to carefully scrutinize the contract.

Science is really about answering questions through an open, replicable and systematic process. It is not about providing evidence for an expected outcome. I think this type of funding will be more problematic than helpful for a scientific career.

  • 4
    I don't think it has to be bad. They may be hoping for it, but not coerce you to get that result.
    – Davidmh
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 12:57
  • @Davidmh It's not just about whether they can force a particular result; it's also about whether they can censor the result. If the contract says that the company has final say on whether to publish, they they can just say no if the results don't support the result they wanted. Keep doing that for long enough, and the only published papers will be the ones that support their preferred result, which makes it seem like that result is correct because there are no published papers refuting it. Commented Aug 1, 2018 at 9:48

A company exists to make money. They fund a research in the hope that the outcome will be beneficial for them (as a student works on a project in the hope that there will be good results out of it). There is nothing intrinsically bad there.

The problem may be with the rest of the conditions. But it will be perfectly fine if: (a) They guarantee you are free to publish whatever you consider and (b) they don't force you to get "good results".

  • 5
    heck, I've seen papers that could not be published not because of a conflict of interest with the funder of the study, but with one between the conclusions of the paper and a major advertiser of the publishing company it was submitted to...
    – jwenting
    Commented Jun 18, 2014 at 13:37

Yes, it is a clear conflict of interests:

a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation.

It does not disqualify your research (as long you make it with full scrutiny, etc; see other answers), but for the sake of scientific honesty you need to mention it (as it can possibly alter your motivation, e.g. to get further grants from the same company or to condition probability of publishing on the outcome).

I saw such notes, e.g. that a given scientist works for a particular drug company.


The company should not impact your choice of research methodology, interpretation of results and the dissemination avenues. If the funding agreement is clear on that, then the "hopes" of a company are isolated from the research stream, and I do not see any evident conflict of interest.


Yours and their interests do conflict but this is not how we usually use the work "conflict of interest." Say if your company actually makes cat food, and then you later got recruited as a consultant on setting up a safe cat food policy, your decisions made in the policy task force can be potentially affected by your financial involvement with the company. In that case, you will need to declare to the policy task force that you have a conflict of interest. In most cases, conflict of interest requires more than two parties, or one of the parties having two or more roles.

In your case it sounds more like a threatening to academic freedom and scientific integrity. Some preventive measures should be done now before things turn ugly. Here are some things that I have been doing in various projects, you may consider following any of them.

  1. Set up a "statement of understanding." It's a binding contract describing who should have the interpretive rights to the data, and how to safeguard everyone's interest. There isn't a template for that, you'll need to lay out items you cannot risk to lose (e.g. your reputation, your institute's reputation, etc.) and contrast with the company's intentions. Talk to your institute's PR or legal representatives for a consultation.

  2. Highlight your value as the neutral middle man. In that sense, express to them firmly that you would like to explore the quality of the product without any prejudice. And explain to them that if their product is substandard, it's better to know now than later when found out by consumer interest group.

  3. Agree upon ALL the protocols, big or small, prior to any analysis. The turmoil I got into mostly about reanalyzing data. Some people just don't give up... and if you look at the same thing for enough iterations, good findings can come out just due to chance. Follow the protocols strictly, and meet to agree again on any modification.

  4. Keep all documents, e-mails, lab books, etc. and keep copies of them.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .