This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Conflict of Interest  • Medical Ethics  • Alert me on articles by topic

Daylian M. Cain, PhD; Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD

JAMA. 2008;299(24):2893-2895.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Medical schools and professional medical associations have developed policies and guidelines in response to increasing concerns over potential conflicts of interest.¹ While many physicians agree with these concerns, some view conflict-of-interest policies as affronts to their integrity and an indictment of the ethical conduct of the profession as a whole. These individuals believe that their training as scientists and their devotion to professionalism protects them from external influences that might bias their opinions. However, this view may be based on an incorrect understanding of human psychology. Conflicts of interest are problematic, not only because they are widespread but also because most people incorrectly think that succumbing to them is due to intentional corruption, a problem for only a few bad apples. In this Commentary, we argue that succumbing to a conflict of interest is more likely to result from unintentional bias, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Ethical Brain, Post Hoc

Author Affiliations: Yale School of Management, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Cain); Departments of Health Policy Management and Evaluation and Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Departments of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Toronto (Dr Detsky).