|
APN Conflict of Interest Policy
The Scientific Planning Group at its 6th meeting stressed the need to elaborate
and tighten the current APN Conflict of Interest Policy. The version outlined
below was recommended by the Steering Committee meeting in December 2001 and
the 7th Scientific Planning Group meeting with minor modifications.
It is essential
to maintain the full confidence of the scientific community, member countries,
other stakeholders, and the public in the integrity and effectiveness
of the APN. To do so the APN must assure that judgments and decisions made
by reviewers during the APN proposals process are made without conflicts
of interest or the appearance thereof. The APN must be regarded as supporting
worthwhile research through a fair and competitive selection process. Such
confidence, when compromised, is extremely difficult to regain.
A conflict
of interest may exist when a reviewer of APN proposals has divided loyalties
between the APN and another entity and/or when the reviewer has an association
with the proponent that might preclude or appear to preclude the ability of
the reviewer to provide a fair and unbiased review.
The APN must therefore avoid
or minimise actual and apparent conflicts of interest to maintain its integrity,
internal effectiveness, and public trust.
The APN therefore concludes, based
on the Conflict of Interest Policy originally approved at the 5th IGM, and
on input from the SPG and the Secretariat, that:
- Reviewers should not review, seek to review, or be seen to influence the review
of their own proposals.
- Reviewers should declare a conflict of interest if any of the
following applies:
- they are a collaborator in the
project or have collaborated directly with the proponent in the past
four years;
- the reviewer is employed by the same organisation or institution
as the proponent or has a similar connection (e.g. board member
or advisor of that organisation); or
- the proponent is a family
member or business partner.
- When a reviewer declares
a conflict of interest, the Secretariat will decide whether the declared
conflict might preclude or might be perceived to preclude the reviewer
from providing an unbiased review.
- If the reviewer disagrees with the decision the reviewer may appeal the Secretariat's decision to the Scientific Planning Group, which shall review the decision; reach a conclusion; and so inform the reviewer and the Secretariat.
- Reviewers in doubt as to whether they should review a proposal may consult the APN Secretariat for advice.
Note: The fact that a proposal involves, or has originated from, the country of a reviewer is not considered, in and of itself, to be a conflict of interest.
|
