20 Pages Posted: 7 May 2013 Last revised: 9 May 2013

Date Written: May 9, 2013

Abstract

The American Psychiatric Association and academic psychiatry in the United States have two conflicts of interest that may affect their assessment of psychiatric drugs and their development of diagnostic and clinical care guidelines: payments from pharmaceutical companies and guild interests. Until recently, the proposed solution to industry-academic relationships has been transparency. However, cognitive dissonance research reveals that disclosure is not a solution because cognitive biases are commonplace and difficult to eradicate. Indeed, bias is most often manifest in subtle ways unbeknownst to the researcher or clinician, and thus is usually implicit and unintentional. Also, recent studies suggest that disclosure of financial conflicts of interest may actually worsen bias. In this paper we discuss the implications of cognitive dissonance theory for understanding why disclosure or even "management" of financial conflicts of interest are not robust enough solutions to guarantee objectivity and prevent bias. We suggest that as a gold standard commercial ties should be eliminated in settings where new drugs are being tested and assessed, or clinical guidelines are being developed. This solution will require the use of multidisciplinary teams to do the tasks, including methodologists in addition to psychiatrists.