Jonathan Knight,San FranciscoMany authors continue to keep financialconflicts of interest to themselves, despiteever stricter journal policies requiring fulldisclosure in published articles. That is theconclusion the Center for Science in thePublic Interest (CSPI), a Washington-basedpressure group, has reached after reviewingall the articles in four major medicalresearch journals over a three-month period.

The problem is the result of a combinationof lax enforcement by editors and loopholesin disclosure policies, says Merrill Goozner, aCSPI researcher and the author of the review.“Our study is a reminder that journals need tobe vigilant,” he says.

Concerns that researchers’ financialinterests might influence their objectivity ormethods have been increasing for 20 years as ties between industry and the academicsphere have broadened. Yet researchjournals have been slow to respond. By 1997, only 16% of the 1,400 top biomedicaljournals had any competing-interest

disclosure policy in place, and enforcementwas patchy at best (see Nature 411, 3; 2001)

Goozner examined articles publishedfrom December 2003 to February 2004 in the New England Journal of Medicine, theJournal of the American Medical Association,Environmental Health Perspectives andToxicology and Applied Pharmacology.He used websites and public databases toinvestigate the lead authors of each article in which a declaration of no competinginterests was made. In a report released on 12 July, Goozner listed 13 studies, out of 163,that failed to comply with the publishingjournal’s disclosure policy.

In one example, an author applied for apatent on a reagent that his paper suggestedwould be valuable in cancer research. Inanother, the authors on a paper aboutcoronary heart disease were paidconsultants to more than 20 companies inthe heart-disease field, but did not disclosethis. According to the CSPI report, theauthors confirmed the relationships by

e-mail, but said “None of them had anythingto do with the paper. Why give them freeadvertising?”

Goozner says it should be up to thereaders to decide. Because journals askauthors to declare only ‘relevant’ or ‘directly relevant’ ties, authors can too easily rationalize their omissions, he claims.Goozner’s solution is to require disclosureof all ties to private firms and all patentsregardless of relevance, and then let theeditors decide which to publish.

The situation may be improving.Although it examined different journals,a 2001 study found that only 1% of papersdisclosed a conflict (Sci. Eng. Ethics 7,205–218; 2001). In the current study, thatrate was up to 20% of papers, with thosefailing to declare an interest making uponly 8%. That at least brings the probleminto a manageable realm, says bioethicistMildred Cho of Stanford University,California. “We should be able to deal with this in the future.” ■

Jim Giles,LondonUK researchers will find more money in thecoffers of those funding them over the nextthree years, thanks to spending plansannounced by the government on 12 July.

The plans call for the country’s two mainscience-funding streams,which cater for basicresearch grants and university running costs,to be boosted by 5.8% a year in real termsbetween 2004–05 and 2007–08. That does notquite match the 10% annual increases calledfor in the previous 2002 spending review (seeNature 418, 261; 2002) and seen over the pastfew years. But it will still take governmentfunding for science and engineering to £5 billion (US$9.3 billion) annually, up from£3.9billion in 2004–05 (see graph).

The figures, unveiled by the chancellor ofthe exchequer,Gordon Brown,as part of a ten-year science strategy, were accompanied by aslew of smaller measures that will also findfavour among researchers. An extra £80 mil-lion over three years has been allocated to helpfund salaries associated with basic researchgrants, for example, easing complaints thatthese costs were being ignored by funders.

“There is much in this that appears to begenuinely good news for the science commu-nity,”says Peter Cotgreave,director of the pres-sure group Save British Science. More goodtidings were supplied by the Wellcome Trust.To coincide with the chancellor’s speech, themedical charity has announced that it willinvest £1.5 billion (US$2.8 billion) in Britain

over the next five years,which will maintain itsspending at current levels.

In the long term, Brown says he also hopesto raise combined government and businessresearch and development funding from thecurrent value of 1.9% of gross domestic prod-uct to 2.5% by 2014. This ambitious targetwould bring Britain in line with competitorssuch as the United States and Germany —which stand at 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively. Ifthis happens, and funding continues to rise at5.8% over the next decade, the level of basicresearch grants may double as hoped (seeNature 429, 688; 2004). But Brown did notspell out which science-funding streamswould be favoured under any future increases.

Critics question whether the strategy con-tains the new ideas needed to achieve this goal. Science-policy experts say that reaching

the 2.5% target depends on increased private-sector funding. America’s top 700 companiesreinvest around 5% of money from sales intoresearch and development, for example, butUK companies spend only half of that.

Yet the strategy focuses instead on boost-ing existing measures, such as grants to helpuniversities work with industry. “There areno new fiscal measures and that is disap-pointing”says Cotgreave.

Lack of action on researchers’ salaries wasthe other notable omission from the strategy.PhD stipends will remain frozen in real terms,although they have grown substantially overthe past three years. Greater concern centreson pay for academics. It is unclear whetherincreases to the university-funding streamwill be channelled away from infrastructureprojects and into improved wages. ■

news

280 NATURE | VOL 430 | 15 JULY 2004 | www.nature.com/nature

Britain spends to secure scientific growth

Authors urged to come clean on competing interests

1

2

3

4

5

Sci

ence

fund

ing

(£ b

illio

ns)

2004–5 2005–6 2006–7 2007–8

Hand out: Gordon Brown announces annual increases in funds for basic grants and university upkeep.

PA

SOU

RC

E: D

TI/

DFE

S

15.7 news 280 MH 13/7/04 2:27 pm Page 280

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group