ASBMR Conflict of Interest Chart
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ASBMR
Approved by ASBMR Council/Board: September 2019, Updated September 2022 and December 2024
This ASBMR Conflict of Interest Policy is formatted in Section V to be used in conjunction with the Conflict of Interest Policy Chart which summarizes ASBMR Conflicts of Interest.
I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND THE INTENT OF THE POLICY.
Under the law, there is a Duty of Loyalty that requires nonprofit organizations to identify and resolve conflicts/dualities of interest among Board decision-makers. This Duty requires Society Leaders to act in the interests of the Society and not for personal or third-party gain, promotion of commercial interests, or financial enrichment.
The mission of the ASBMR is to advance bone, mineral and musculoskeletal science worldwide and to promote the translation of basic and clinical research to improve human health. Central to pursuing that mission, is the obligation of ASBMR leaders to maintain the autonomy and integrity of the organization. To achieve this, ASBMR leaders must maintain their objectivity and loyalty to the Society, and not be influenced by commercial or external influence or bias.
This Policy applies to the ASBMR Officers (Executive Committee Members: President, President-Elect, Past-President, Secretary-Treasurer, Secretary-Treasurer Elect), Council/Board Members, Committee and Subcommittee Chairs and members, Editors, Deputy/Associate Editors and Editorial Boards of ASBMR journals and publications, Task Force Members, Program Committees, and Representatives of ASBMR to other societies (collectively referred to as “ASBMR Leaders” in this document).
It is the intention of the Society that the presence or appearance of a conflict of interest be declared and acknowledged. Situations in which any leader of the Society has such conflicts or dualities of interest must then be resolved, if that is possible, before permitting the leader to act, speak, represent, or participate in decision-making and policy generation on behalf of the ASBMR.
This policy is not intended to restrict ASBMR Leaders in their roles as scientists, physicians, researchers, medical professionals, and administrators. Ethical guidelines from professional societies, federal agencies, and other organizations governing the conduct of research, the protection of human and animal subjects, and the care of patients serve that purpose.
The intent of this policy is to identify and facilitate the resolution of conflicts and dualities of interest. ASBMR Leaders are encouraged – and in noted situations are required – to consult the Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC) if there is any uncertainty whether a conflict exists and as to how and when conflicts might be resolved.
II. WHAT ARE ACTUAL AND APPARENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND HOW DO THEY DIFFER?
An actual conflict/duality of interest is defined as a situation in which an individual decision-maker has an impediment to being impartial and loyal, such as: (1) a personal, professional, financial, business or volunteer position, responsibility, or interest; or 2) a conflicting duty to another entity where the individual's allegiance may be split between the Society and another organization.
An apparent conflict/duality is defined as a situation or relationship that may cause a reasonable person to perceive that there is a real conflict or to question whether there is an impediment to impartiality that could cause the leader’s loyalty or judgment to be compromised.
It is a conflict of interest for ASBMR Leaders to: (1) use their position and status to promote any commercial enterprise; (2) allow outside interests to affect their loyalty to the Society when making decisions; (3) take actions that affect the value of a commercial enterprise in which the Leader has a financial interest; and (4) engage in decisions and activities that provide unwarranted benefit or endorsement by ASBMR. Using the name or reputation of a 501(c)(3) organization such as ASBMR to promote any commercial enterprise is considered a private benefit and is not permitted.
Whether or not a specific situation is considered a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest is determined by how that situation appears to others. This might not be how the leader with the actual or apparent conflict of interest views the situation. Conflicts of interest – whether actual or apparent - must be resolved.
Even though a conflict or apparent conflict may exist, that does not mean individuals cannot serve in a volunteer leadership position. Many, although not all, conflicts or apparent conflicts can be managed with a plan from the EAC.
In some cases, conflicts of interest can be resolved by disclosure and explanation. For example, there may appear to be a conflict when a potential vendor for a major Society project has the same surname as the Society’s President, making them appear to be related. If in fact they are not related, it is only an apparent conflict of interest that can be resolved by disclosing and explaining the facts.
In contrast, a situation might arise in which an ASBMR leader is involved in a decision that could provide an opportunity to someone at that leader’s university; even if there is no relationship between the leader and the potential recipient and even if the leader would receive no benefit for a positive decision, this situation represents an apparent conflict of interest that must be resolved by having the leader refrain from participating in the decision.
III. WHY ARE CONFLICTS RESOLVED DIFFERENTLY FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ASBMR LEADERS?
As ASBMR Leaders have varying levels of responsibility and authority, they have varying opportunity for unilateral influence over a matter. For ASBMR Leaders with higher levels of responsibility and authority, more restriction is placed upon these Leaders because they have the opportunity to unilaterally influence Society decisions; such Leaders include the President, the Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, and certain Task Force and Committee Chairs and Members.
As indicated by the entries in the Conflict of Interest Policy Chart, which provides a concise summary of the Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines, when the Society takes on a more prominent role in crafting positions on issues within the ASBMR mission that relate to patient care, the individuals in the highest ASBMR leadership positions and those with important clinical positions should not be regarded as having ties to pharma. In such cases, the conflict is regarded more strictly. The decision in each case, however, remains with the EAC.
IV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROCEDURES.
Prior to accepting any nomination or assignment of responsibilities, all nominees and prospective ASBMR Leaders are required to complete the Conflict/Duality of Interest Disclosure Form and to contact the Ethics Advisory Committee (EAC) about any conflict/duality of interest, or any interests or relationships they might have that could be perceived as a conflict/duality of interest, in order to determine their eligibility to serve, and if eligible, what conflict resolution procedures would have to be followed. Information on the disclosure forms is not public.
- ASBMR Leaders must update their information annually. The Executive Director compiles the disclosures and, in consultation as needed with the President, reviews the list against the Council/Board Meeting agenda and the responsibilities of their position to determine possible conflicts/dualities, and seeking the guidance of the Ethics Advisory Committee as needed.
- Once in a leadership position, ASBMR Leaders are expected to identify, immediately consult with the EAC, and resolve, or eliminate, any conflicts and dualities of interest that arise during their term of office.
- ASBMR Leaders are expected, in advance of any meetings/discussion if possible, to engage in review of their meeting agendas, manuscript assignments, program proposals and any and all other specific responsibilities they are undertaking or being assigned, in order to fully declare and disclose verbally any actual or apparent conflict/duality of interest issues.
- In every instance in which an ASBMR Leader has a conflict or duality of interest regarding a particular transaction (e.g., any specific decision or action), the ASBMR Leader is required to:
- Declare the conflict to the ASBMR group within which they are working;
- As determined by the group, the Leader must be recused from the balance of any discussion about the matter comprising the conflict, both within and outside of formal meetings; and,
- Refrain from voting on the matter comprising the conflict.
- Handling Suddenly Identified Conflicts. Council/Board Members, Committee and Subcommittee Chairs might face a situation where they must deal with an actual or apparent conflict of interest that is unexpectedly identified during the course of a meeting. For example, during a meeting someone might realize that a relative, or a close institutional colleague, or a former institutional colleague, or a distant institutional colleague, is under consideration for a Society benefit. The decision might involve a key presentation at the annual meeting, publication of an article in a society journal, or recognition for a prize. The conflict must be addressed in real time even if there is no opportunity to consult the EAC. In such cases, the actual or apparent conflict must first be disclosed, ideally by the person who has the conflict but otherwise by anyone in attendance who has knowledge of it. Then the chair of the committee must consult with its members, without the potentially-conflicted leader present. Should the conflict pertain to the chair, then the committee shall consider the issue without the chair present. The group must determine: (a) the extent, if at all, the leader can participate in the discussion of the matter; and, (b) whether the leader can participate in the voting or other decision-making on the matter. All such conflicts and their resolutions shall be noted in the minutes.
- ASBMR Leaders with conflicts/dualities of interest must recuse themselves from any discussion related to any matter related to their conflict.
- In the event that a candidate or incumbent ASBMR Leader has widespread conflicts (such as serving as an officer in a competing association, editor of a competing journal, individual or immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) ownership of any such companies identified above, or conflicting duties) that result in pervasive conflict situations under these rules, recusal may have to be so frequent as to render the individual essentially unavailable for service and therefore ineligible to serve.
V. SPECIFIC POLICY PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHART
There are certain conflict situations that warrant the same restrictions or permissions for all ASBMR Leaders, while others are permitted for some and restricted for others based on the level of their leadership position.
As explained in this Section, some situations pose a conflict that can be resolved only by prohibiting the Leader from engaging in that particular activity or situation.
For all situations in which the Leader has concerns about a potential conflict, the Leader is advised to consult with the EAC. (See also the corresponding section in the Conflict of Interest Chart.)
A. CONFLICT SITUATIONS - Statement of Policy Agreement
I agree to disclose to the Ethics Advisory Committee and group(s) with which I am working (e.g., Council/Board) every instance in which I have an actual or apparent conflict or duality and, as determined by the EAC/group, to recuse myself from the activity, discussion, and/or decision.
B. ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH BONE/MINERAL-RELATED CORPORATE ENTITIES, PERMISSIBLE EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTERACTIONS WITH INDUSTRY, CONFLICT SIUTATIONS IN WHICH ALL ASBMR LEADERS MAY ENGAGE
Many companies operate within the scope of ASBMR’s mission, (e.g., pharmaceutical, medical device, or other companies related to bone, mineral and musculoskeletal diagnostics and therapeutics) referred to here as Bone/Mineral/Musculoskeletal-Related Corporate Entities or just Corporate Entities.
The rationale for allowing engagement of members with Corporate Entities is that the Society encourages its members to be involved in certain professional and scientific activities and relationships with Corporate Entities that have commercial interests within the scope of ASBMR’s mission. The Society believes that it serves the public interest and advances its nonprofit mission by allowing and encouraging the most qualified physicians and scientists to be available to provide non-commercial input, guidance, and support to such Corporate Entities.
In short, the Society wants its members to be able to provide Corporate Entities with the most qualified expertise and guidance about bone-mineral related scientific issues, as that advances science and serves the public interest.
>Therefore, ALL ASBMR Leaders may:
1) Serve as investigators in corporate-supported clinical trials and basic research;
2) Serve on data safety monitoring boards; and,
3) Serve on corporate advisory boards.
Note that disclosure of these activities is still required.
C. IMPERMISSIBLE SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY AND OTHER ENTITIES: Conflict Situations In Which NO ASBMR Leader May Engage.
In contrast, there are a number of situations and activities that are not acceptable for any ASBMR Leader to engage in. The concern with the following situations is that the proposed activity, relationship, or position unduly promotes the commercial interests of a Bone/Mineral/Musculoskeletal-Related Corporate Entity.
The first three situations below (4-6) involve, or may be perceived as involving, unjustified and undeserved alignment with and promotion of the Corporate Entities’ commercial interests. In any situation, ASBMR and its Leaders are not permitted to use the ASBMR name or their position either to promote commercial interests or to take unauthorized positions on issues.
>Therefore, NO ASBMR Leaders may:
(4) Use their position to promote corporate entities;
(5) Take ASBMR-related actions that affect the value of a corporate entity in which the Leader has a financial interest;
(6) Use or to allow others to use, their name and/or ASBMR status to endorse or support corporate interests; or,
(7) Identify their ASBMR leadership positions in regular communications, in email signatures, or in any other manner that gives the false impression that the Leader is representing ASBMR or its views, unless it relates to ASBMR-approved positions or official purposes. If identified in unauthorized situations, the Leaders are expected to clarify that they are not representing the views or speaking on behalf, of ASBMR.
LEADERS IN POSITIONS WITH GREATER UNILATERAL INFLUENCE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY ON BEHALF OF INDUSTRY: These restrictions apply to the President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee.
More restrictions apply to the ASBMR President, the Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors in Chief, and certain Task Force and Committee Members. These Leaders are in positions with greater influence over the Society’s decisions and allocation of resources and opportunities than other ASBMR Leaders. For example, Editors-in-Chief have more influence over publications than Deputy Editors and Associate Editors. Similarly, the Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee have more influence on clinical issues than the Chairs and Members of the other ASBMR Task Forces, Committees, ASBMR Representatives to other organizations, and ASBMR Journal Editorial Board members. In particular, the Program Committee may have greater opportunities to offer or deny representation on programs. Further, the influence of the ASBMR name, especially when used in connection with actions or positions taken by its senior leaders, might influence patient care so it is critical that they not be seen as biased toward industry.
>Therefore, the President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, and Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee may NOT:
(8) Testify before or submit presentations to federal or other national or international agencies on behalf of Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entities. This prohibition is in place to avoid showing alignment between Corporate Entities and prominent ASBMR Leaders. Other Committee and Subcommittee Chairs and Members may be permitted to testify if approved by the EAC, unless the testimony is within the scope of the ASBMR mission.
(9) Serve as chair of a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity corporate advisory board.
D. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.
IMPERMISSIBLE CONFLICTS WITH OTHER SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATIONS
(10) No ASBMR Leader is permitted to have a conflicting duty to another organization and not resolve it. Any conflicting duty must be disclosed, and referred to the EAC for review and for determination as to the process for resolution.
Other situations, noted as (11) and (12) below and on the COI Chart, create irreconcilable conflicts with other scientific associations for specific senior-level ASBMR Leaders.
There is the need to protect the Society’s strategic planning and confidential information. Therefore specific conflict situations pertain to those ASBMR Leaders who attend Council/Board meetings. Those senior ASBMR Leaders have an irreconcilable conflict that would prevent them from serving as officers or directors in competing organizations that would be engaged in strategic planning and confidential communications intended to secure their own resources. This specific restriction is:
(11) Officers or directors (e.g., President, Secretary-Treasurer, Board Members) in another organization that: (a) has a mission that overlaps with ASBMR; and, (b) may be in competition with ASBMR for financial resources are not permitted to serve as ASBMR Leaders who typically attend ASBMR Council/Board meetings. The concern here is that the Leaders who attend Council/Board meetings (including Officers and Councilors/Board Members, Editors in Chief of JBMR®, JBMR® Plus, and the Primer on the Metabolic Bone Diseases and Disorders of Mineral Metabolism, Committee and Subcommittee Chairs) are privy to and participate in ASBMR strategic planning. This restriction does not apply to Task Force Chairs or members because they do not attend Council/Board meetings. It is therefore an unresolvable conflict for ASBMR Officers, Councilors/Board Members, and Editors-in-Chief, Committee and Subcommittee Chairs to serve as officers or directors (e.g., President, Secretary-Treasurer, Member of Board) in organizations that pursue missions that overlap with ASBMR’s mission and that compete for resources with ASBMR. This restriction does not apply to small regional/local organizations that support bone and mineral research or small focused meetings (e.g., AIMM, Gordon Conferences) but to national and international organizations such as ANZBMS, BHOF, ECTS, Endocrine Society, ICMRS, JSBMR, KSBMR, IOF, ISCD, ORS, SIBOMM, and SIOMMMS. Officer or director service to an organization not explicitly named in this section will be reviewed by the EAC and a determination made as to the member’s eligibility to serve in the role concurrently with an ASBMR leadership position.
(12) Similarly, ASBMR Leaders who attend Council/Board meetings and/or serve as decision-making leaders for ASBMR journals (Deputy Editors, Associate Editors) may not serve as Editors-in-chief for competing journals. It is inappropriate for the Editor-in-Chief of a competing journal serving in a capacity that lets them attend ASBMR Council/Board meetings and be privy to strategic planning, budgeting, and confidential information and discussions. ASBMR Leaders are explicitly not permitted to serve as the Editor-in-Chief of the following journals: Bone, Bone Reports, Bone Research, Calcified Tissue International, Endocrinology, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism and Osteoporosis International. Leaders may also not serve as the Editor-in-Chief for any other journal not listed above that is associated with any organization listed in C.11. Editor-in-Chief service to a journal not explicitly named in this section will be reviewed by the EAC and a determination made as to the member’s eligibility to serve in the role concurrently with an ASBMR leadership position.
To explain further, ASBMR’s Journals are a valuable, strategic, and revenue-producing resource for ASBMR. ASBMR Leaders, including the President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, Committee and Subcommittee Chairs attend Council/Board meetings and are therefore privy to ASBMR strategic planning, confidential information, and competitive discussions. Editors-in-Chief of other Bone/Mineral/Musculoskeletal-related journals whose mission overlaps with the ASBMR’s mission present an irreconcilable conflict. This restriction does not apply to ASBMR committee members, Task Force Chairs or members, ASBMR representatives to other organizations or editorial board members of ASBMR’s journals because they do not attend Council/Board meetings, although all of these positions require disclosure of an Editor-in-Chief role for a competing journal to the ASBMR.
E. SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED BY BONE/MINERAL/ MUSCULOSKELETAL-RELATED CORPORATE ENTITIES
As explained above, the Society wants and encourages its member experts to be available to advance the understanding and application of science, without creating impermissible conflicts. Toward that goal, the Society has determined that:
(13) ASBMR Leaders are permitted to give internal presentations to Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entities that pay speaker fees, honoraria or expense reimbursement.
In this situation, the Leaders are educating their industry colleagues and are not making public presentations that could be viewed as aligned with any Corporate Entity.
However, the President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, and Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee:
(14) MAY NOT speak at symposia or programs sponsored by those Corporate Entities at the ASBMR Annual Meeting. The concern here is that speakers selected by the Corporate Entity may be appear to be aligned with the Corporate Entity, whether actually or just apparently, versus when speakers are not selected by a Corporate Entity. Other ASBMR Leaders are permitted to speak at such programs but may not have their position with ASBMR identified.
(15) ARE PERMITTED to receive speaker fees, honoraria or expense reimbursement DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY from a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity to speak at commercially supported meetings but MUST disclose on the ASBMR Conflict of Interest form all compensation.
Even when such speaking engagements are permitted, Leaders are reminded that their position with ASBMR is not to be identified. Further, if there is a consultancy arrangement in addition to the speaking engagement, the rules and restrictions on consultancies outlined below apply.
Though it is preferable for speaker fees, honoraria or expense reimbursement to be paid to the Leader’s institution (indirect payment) ASBMR recognizes that this might not always be possible and allows direct payment to leaders though all payments, direct and indirect must be disclosed to ASBMR.
(16) MAY NOT receive speaker fees, honoraria or expense reimbursement DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY from a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity for speaking to clinicians or patients on behalf of a company’s products or services within the scope of the ASBMR mission.
Other ASBMR Leaders are permitted to speak at such programs. However, even when a speaking engagement is permitted, the Leader’s position with ASBMR is not to be identified and all monies paid to the Leader, directly or indirectly, must be disclosed to ASBMR.
F. SENIOR ASBMR LEADERS MAY NOT RECEIVE MORE THAN $15,000 FROM BONE/MINERAL-RELATED CORPORATE ENTITIES.
As noted above, the ability to resolve certain conflicts varies by leadership position, depending on the extent to which they can influence certain decisions (e.g., selection of a key conference sponsor, selection of a favorable journal article, positive resolution of task force review). Some Leadership positions - such as editorial board members and ASBMR representatives to other organizations - however important they are, do not present the same opportunity for favoritism. As with other conflicts, the most stringent restrictions apply to the ASBMR Leaders with the greatest opportunity to take unilateral action or to have a disproportionate effect on a decision or situation.
>Therefore, the President, Officers, Editors-in-Chief, and Clinical Task Force, Program Committee, and Professional Practice Committee Chairs and Members are NOT PERMITTED:
(17a) To directly own, or for their immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) to directly own any amount of stock in a privately-held Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity. All Leadership positions require disclosure of any amount of stock in a privately-held Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity. Mutual funds or other grouped or indirectly held investments are not included in this prohibition. Any ASBMR Leader with this conflict must seek EAC guidance for case-by-case review and conflict management.
(17b) Unless permitted on a case-by-case basis, to directly own, or for their immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) to directly own more than $15,000 in publicly traded stock or equity rights in any Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity. There is little an ASBMR Leader could do to affect the financial well-being or status of a publicly traded company in which the Leader owns stock. In contrast, there is a greater likelihood that a Leader could act favorably toward a privately held company in which the Leader is a part owner. Mutual funds or other grouped or indirectly held investments are not included in this prohibition. Any ASBMR Leader with this conflict must seek EAC guidance for case-by-case review and conflict management.
(18) Unless permitted on a case-by-case basis, to receive or for their immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) to receive more than $15,000 in direct value (e.g., stock options, other remuneration, dividends, royalties [including from intellectual property], travel) from any Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity in the prior 12 months. Compensation that relates to a specific situation described elsewhere in these rules (e.g., expert witness testimony, consulting) are addressed by those rules. Any ASBMR Leader with this conflict must seek EAC guidance for case-by-case review and conflict management.
(19) To be employed or for their immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) to be employed by a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity in the prior 12 months. Receiving compensation from a company for services as an employee presents a greater conflict than being a part owner of a privately held company, and a considerably greater conflict than being one of thousands (or millions) of individuals owning publicly traded stock.
The President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief MAY NOT be employed by a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity in the prior 12 months. All ASBMR Leaders with this conflicts must seek EAC guidance and approval. The EAC will determine on case-by-case review if the conflict can be managed.
For ASBMR Leaders whose immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) are employed by a Bone/Mineral-Related Corporate Entity in the prior 12 months, all conflicts must be disclosed and the EAC will determine on a case-by-case review if the conflict can be managed.
Severity of conflicts focus on the extent to which the person receiving value is responsible for the conduct of, or in a position to determine or influence, a particular activity or decision
The greatest concerns pertain to those who have a specific role or greater opportunity to develop positions that relate to the practice of favoritism or allocation of benefits.
The severity of any conflict is judged according to the following factors and rationale:
- How much influence or ability the conflicted ASBMR leader has over the decision being made;
- The extent to which the conflict presents an opportunity for a benefit that would influence the ASBMR Leader’s conduct;
- The amount or value the ASBMR Leader has in the company (e.g., $15,000 versus $500,000); and,
- Whether the conflict is more acute when one receives value directly (e.g., in cash) versus indirectly (e.g., owning .001% of a company in stock).
(a) Ability to Influence an ASBMR Decision.
Individuals who serve as a non-clinical Committee or Subcommittee Chair, non-clinical Task Force chair or member, as a Deputy or Associate Editor are not in a position to overly influence the conduct or outcome of a decision in their position of service. As with any conflict situation, they must still declare a conflict (e.g. “my daughter is employed by a particular Bone-related company,” or “I have $15,000 in stock on a Bone-related company”) but their receipt or holding of such value would not render them ineligible to serve in those positions.
In contrast, the ASBMR President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Program Chairs, Program Committee members, Professional Practice Committee members, and Editors-in-Chief have considerable responsibility and influence over the decisions in which they participate in. Accordingly, the presumption is that those individuals cannot qualify for their positions if they or their immediate families, hold or receive more than $15,000 in payments or stock in a Bone-related entity. However, as explained below, this is just a presumption, and the ultimate decision will be determined by the EAC based on the factors explained here.
(b) Ownership Value Versus Receipt of Direct Payments. The direct receipt of value (cash payments) is viewed as a greater concern than the indirect value (stock ownership). Conflicts are of greater concern when funds are received directly, which is why Council/Board Members are included as “No” under Conflict #18 and “Yes” under Conflict #17. It takes more assurance to overcome the presumption that a Leader is disqualified from receipt of $15,000 in payments versus holding $15,000 in stock.
(c) Financial Extent of the Conflict. The value owned or received ($15,000 vs. $500,000) is a relevant factor when assessing a presumption. Greater value creates a greater benefit and potentially more influence over an action or a decision. Moreover, it can create an unwanted and unacceptable appearance that a senior ASBMR leader in a position of influence is inclined to favor (or disfavor) a certain bone-related company.
(d) Potential Benefit to the ASBMR Leader. The potential benefit to the Leader is relevant. The value of the situation to the ASBMR Leader may be so minimal or attenuated so as to reduce its potential impact on decision-making.
Applying those factors, for example, a financial interest pertaining to a small bone-related company that has no anticipated or potential role in ASBMR activities (and whose competitors also do not), represents a minimal risk of impact on the Leader’s decision-making.
For example, an ASBMR Leader with immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) who is employed as a stock-person at a bone-related Pharma warehouse (which falls within Conflict #19) would not constitute a significant conflict because the Leader would not have the capacity or real incentive to benefit that Pharma entity. But if significant value (e.g., $100,000) is received by the Leader’s immediate family, the Leader would have greater incentive and possibly a greater impact to potentially benefit the Leader. Even if the Leader’s actions are deemed unlikely to benefit the relative (or their employer), the EAC could still determine that there is a serious enough appearance of the conflict to prohibit receipt of the value (or disqualify the Leader from service in that ASBMR capacity).
Taken together, all ASBMR leaders must disclose situations in which they own or receive value of more than $15,000 from Corporate Entities. ASBMR leaders in such situations will at a minimum be required to recuse themselves from the balance of discussions and decisions. But the Leaders whose positions involve the exercise of significant discretion or influence over allocating or withholding assets or benefits of the Society will likely be DISQUALIFIED from holding their positions while owning or receiving more than $15,000 in the Corporate Entities.
(20) The President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, and the Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee are generally NOT PERMITTED to serve as a Consultant, unless the EAC makes an exception on a case-by-case basis.
ASBMR Leaders consulting with Companies as to the development and/or promotion of products within the mission of ASBMR would more clearly align the Leader with the interests of the particular company. Those situations would invariably present a conflict of interest. The EAC might not be able to treat the conflict as situational or transactional conflict, and therefore resolvable by recusal. The conflict might be so rooted in the Leader’s status as the Company’s consultant, as to be unresolvable. In such cases, the Leader would have to choose between their consultancy and their ASBMR position.
Serving as a consultant on matters and for companies unrelated to the ASBMR mission might not be regarded by the EAC as a conflict of interest at all. For example, the EAC could allow otherwise restricted ASBMR Leaders to serve as expert consultants unrelated to the ASBMR mission. For example, the EAC could approve consulting about non-clinical patents, such as tests or machines, or basic science applications, or concerning medical malpractice cases unrelated to diseases in the ASBMR mission.
In addition, the EAC might also approve consulting about the approach to rare bone diseases, even though they are related to the ASBMR mission, because there are relatively few scientists with this expertise and rare bone diseases affect relatively few people, compared to more common bone and mineral diseases such as osteoporosis or primary hyperparathyroidism.
G. SERVING AS EXPERT WITNESS
Serving as an expert witness is a unique role under the conflict of interest rules and could present a greater or lesser conflict depending on the circumstances. As an expert witness, the ASBMR Leader may be perceived as aligned or hostile with the interests of the company involved. EAC might find a conflict that can be resolved, or one that cannot, as described below.
>The President, Officers, Council/Board Members, Editors-in-Chief, Deputy Editor, Associate Editors, Editorial Board Members, and the Chairs and Members of Clinical Task Forces, the Professional Practice Committee, and the Program Committee may be PERMITTED on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with EAC guidance and approval to serve as an expert witness on a legal case.
(21) To serve as an expert witness on a legal case an ASBMR Leader with this conflict must seek EAC guidance and approval, based on the following factors.
Expert witnesses are called upon in different ways. Some expert witnesses are engaged by the court. They are used to explain technical, scientific, or medical points to a jury or to the judge.
That concept is set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which applies in federal court cases and which is essentially used in state court cases as well, as follows.[1] As to the court-appointed expert witness, there is less concern about a conflict of interest. While the witness’ testimony still might result in favoring one Party’s interest over another, the testimony is regarded as provided to the court, for the court (or jury), without bias. The EAC might conclude that such arrangement does not present any actual or apparent conflict of interest.
In contrast, when a witness is engaged by a Party there is an inherent appearance that the witness is biased in favor of that Party. While they are also used to explain technical, scientific, or medical points, when called by a Party, the expert witness invariably supports the position of the Party that called them. Therefore, the EAC might find on a case-by-case basis that a witness appearing on behalf of a party presents more of an apparent, if not actual, conflict of interest.
Further, some expert testimony might involve Parties that have no relationship with ASBMR, and whose interests cannot be affected (positively or negatively) by the actions of the ASBMR Leader. In such cases, there is little to no concern about a conflict with the Leader’s interest and loyalty toward ASBMR. So there is no conflict.
Whether the EAC determine there to be a conflict with an expert witness called by the court or by a Party, the question remains as to whether the conflict can be resolved. Some conflicts are transactional. With those, a Leader’s recusal from certain decisions resolves the conflict. For example, if the Leader serves as an expert witness for Company A which has few interactions with ASBMR, that conflict can be resolved by recusing the Leader from transactions (i.e., decisions) pertaining to Company A and its competitors.
In contrast, if Company A or its competitors have frequent interactions with ASBMR (e.g., regularly seeking status as ASBMR event sponsors or speakers), the conflict is regarded as a conflict of interest rooted in the status (i.e., the position) of the Leader. In such situations, the Leader would have to decide whether to serve as the expert witness or remain qualified to serve as an ASBMR Leader.
Any ASBMR Leader with this situation must seek EAC guidance and approval.
H. DOING BUSINESS WITH ASBMR
It is a direct conflict of interest for the most senior ASBMR Leaders to do business with ASBMR. It creates the reality, and certainly also the appearance, that with their influence they have directed or diverted Society assets to their personal benefit.
> Therefore, the President, Officers, and Council/Board Members are NOT PERMITTED:
(22) To own, or for their immediate family (spouse, domestic partner and dependent children) to own, any amount of a corporate entity providing direct service (e.g., consulting, IT) to the ASBMR.
Summary
This Conflict of Interest Policy and the Conflict of Interest Chart are intended to give notice and direction as to the situations in which ASBMR Leaders have a conflict and whether and how such conflicts can be resolved.
Please remember that in every conflict situation, ASBMR Leaders are required to disclose the conflict and abide by the decision of the unconflicted Leaders to refrain from the balance of discussion and from voting on the matter. With any questions, and particularly when directed by the Policy and the Chart, the EAC should be consulted.
Following these rules will help preserve the trust that ASBMR members, ASBMR funders, and the general public have in the Society’s process of governance and decision-making.
[1] Section 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”