Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Q: How do you reconcile claimed lack of COI with statements about past support from Posit Science?

Posted by Hal_Pashler on 02 May 2013 at 00:24 GMT

You say "None of the members of the investigative team have any conflicts of interest or commitment involving Posit Science." But you describe authors receiving various payments from Posit Science for consulting and study costs in the past, right?

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what does the lack of conflict of interest come down to, exactly? Are you stating that you won't accept any consulting or support from them in the future?

If the payments in the past don't constitute a COI, then what would be a COI? Only if authors had a major equity ownership in PositScience? Or if PositScience had told you they would pay you contingent on the outcome of the study?

Is the definition of COI you are using something that is written down somewhere?

No competing interests declared.

RE: Q: How do you reconcile claimed lack of COI with statements about past support from Posit Science?

wolinskyf replied to Hal_Pashler on 02 May 2013 at 01:42 GMT

Enter your comment...Thank you for your question. Among the authors, only Dr. Wolinsky received any compensation from Posit Science in the past, and that ended in early 2009. That support was only for analysis of ACTIVE data about health outcomes that was cut from competing continuation. Posit Science had no influence on how those analyses were conducted, and agreed up front that whatever findings emerged would be published without any censorship from them. The agreement with Dr. Wolinsky was approved by the ACTIVE Executive Committee, which include the project officers from NIA and NINR. Dr. Wolinsky's short consulting with Posit Science was also approved by the University of Iowa. This is all fully disclosed on page 1. That said, the COI statement in the paper is consistent with NIH policy on what constitutes a conflict of interest.

No competing interests declared.