By Daniel Garisto
Conflicts of interest are a minefield science writers need to navigate—whether you’re hiring a freelancer, verifying the integrity of a source, or keeping tabs on government officials. The experts on this panel discussed what constitutes a conflict of interest and how to handle them when they crop up.
Moderated by Matt Davenport, multimedia editor at Chemical and Engineering News, the panel consisted of Christine Dell’Amore, an editor at National Geographic, Steve Gibb, a reporter at Bloomberg Environment, and Genna Reed from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Conflicts of interest, according to Reed, are best defined as “the potential for an individual to receive some kind of personal benefit from their actions in an official capacity.” The word “potential” is critical—whether or not harm has been done, the appearance of a possible conflict itself is an issue. When these conflicts exist, disclosure is critical.
Prompted by Davenport, Gibb and Dell’Amore spoke about the different ways in which they ran up against conflicts of interest, as a reporter and editor, respectively. For reporters, the conflicts are often disclosed in journals that papers are published in, Gibbs said. Still, it’s good to look at an author’s history of work to determine what their background is on any given issue.
Dell’Amore said she looks out for “tit for tat” deals that could bias her freelancers in one way or another. She mentioned that recently, National Geographic has deemphasized paid press trips because “whether you can report—feel free and independent when you’ve gotten this first-class trip to China” is a serious question.
But not everyone wants to disclose conflicts. Even in government, where disclosures are mandatory, Reed said there are issues related to recusals. For example, Nancy Beck, an EPA official, is regulating the chemical industry she used to work in. Getting information about the ethics waivers these government employees file to work in spite of a conflict of interest can be difficult, Reed said.
For journalists, deciding whom to quote and how to provide context for a quote in light of the source’s biases is a major issue. Gibb provided the example of a source in the mining industry who claimed new mining techniques were “sensitive” to the environment—a highly questionable claim that Gibb decided to caveat. Dell’Amore agreed; she noted that she treats sources like PETA and Greenpeace with more skepticism because of their ideological positions.
Davenport, who works for Chemical and Engineering News, which is published by the American Chemical Society, noted that others often confuse his publisher with the American Chemistry Council—an industrial trade association. So what should a disclosure entail? Does it have to address potential confusion by readers?
Reed agreed that keeping reader’s trust is critical, which is why her organization publishes all of its raw data and methodology. It is critical to correct errors and own mistakes, Gibb and Dell’Amore agreed. The panel also concluded that editorial independence was critical for science writers and publications.
Full disclosure: the writer received a scholarship to DCSWA’s Professional Development Day on the stipulation that he write a piece covering one breakout session.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.