Conflicts of interest: Gibson's response.

I applaud Tweedale's effort to ferret out and expose true conflicts of interest in regard to health research. However, he is barking up the wrong tree when he suggests that conflict of interest was present in my study of perceived treatment efficacy for therapies for multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) (Gibson et al. 2003). Although I admit to having a strong interest in and caring deeply about issues relating to my topic of research, I do not think that this distinguishes me from any other researcher.

My funding was from the Chemical Injury Information Network (CIIN), a nonprofit organization that works to provide education and advocacy regarding MCS. Neither the CIIN nor I have any vested financial interest whatsoever in any of the treatments researched. My purpose for the study was to examine resource allocation for and efficacy of treatments for a currently delegitimized condition. The CIIN has an interest in gathering and providing information to those with MCS about this issue, but the organization neither advocates nor benefits from the use or sale of any particular treatment. Tweedale's suggestion that the CIIN may gain financially from "seeing MCS declared a prevalent hazard" seems inappropriate, given the study's focus on treatment and not prevalence.

Finally, I clearly disagree with Tweedale's suggestion that even funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is suspect because the NIH has an interest in health. Nonprofit organizations have been funding health research for decades and, in my mind, having an "interest in health" is in no way synonymous with a financial vested interest.

The author declares she has no competing financial interests.

Pamela Gibson

James Madison University 

Harrisonburg, Virginia

E-mail: [e-mail]

REFERENCES

Gibson PR, Elms AN-M, Ruding LA. 2003. Perceived treatment efficacy for conventional and alternative therapies reported by persons with multiple chemical sensitivity. Environ Health Perspect 111:1498-1504.

Editors' note: Because the phrase "conflict of interests" can be interpreted so broadly that almost everyone could be considered to have a conflict, we modified our policy for declaring conflicts of interest in December 2003 (Environ Health Perspect 111:A900-905). EHP now requires authors to declare "competing financial interests." The new policy is available on the web in our updated Instructions to Authors (http:// ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/admin/edpolicy.html); the new downloadable form is also available (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/cfi.pdf).

Because EHP is not in the position to confirm the accuracy of disclosure statements made by our authors, we hold authors responsible for providing accurate information. EHP authors can expect scrutiny of their statements by our readers and by the authors' own employers. We welcome letters to the editor that address alleged inaccuracies of declarations of competing financial interests.