A conflict of interest that is often difficult to avoid is the conflict between one’s professional obligations to perform research objectively and produce reliable results, and one’s desire for career advancement. Promotion, tenure, and funding prospects are all enhanced by a healthy publication record. It is difficult when working on a research project to set aside thoughts of its impact on one’s own career. There have been celebrated cases of researchers fudging and fabricating data to advance their own career interests [see Alexander Kohn, False Prophets].

Since this conflict is very difficult to avoid, it is generally managed instead. Formal and informal peer review helps supply an objective look at one’s research. The principle of open communication in science also makes it more difficult to hide falsified or selectively interpreted data. Despite these checks, intentional and unintentional bias still play a role in scientific research.

A conflict can also arise in the peer-review process. An investigator is asked to review a journal submission or a grant proposal because of his or her expertise in the field. As a result of this common ground shared by the submitter and the reviewer, there is an increased likelihood that the reviewer has had some collaborative contact with the submitter or is in some way a competitor of the submitter. The nature of the competition could be related to funding or to primacy in the field. Typically these conflicts are first handled by disclosure to the organization that requested the review. In small fields, this type of conflict of interest may be difficult to avoid. To the extent, however, that such conflicts arise and are not properly managed, they can decrease confidence in the peer review system.