Equal treatment: Bestowed or earned?

PURPOSE: While the complaint against non-industry employed epidemiologists for holding their industry-based colleagues to a higher level of scrutiny is accurate, this paper shows that there is a sound basis for such treatment. It also shows, however, that a shift towards ongoing vigilance is needed on the part of all epidemiologists to guard against such bias. METHODS: The proposed shift is made possible through the recent incorporation in ethics guidelines of principles that indeed identify the impropriety of any such bias. RESULTS: In the same guidelines, there are principles that require scientific impartiality. Industry-based epidemiologists, by the condition of their employment, may find the avoidance of partiality to the corporate interest more problematic than do non-industry based epidemiologists to their respective sponsors. It is in light of past examples of partiality among industry-based epidemiologists that other epidemiologists may be biased against them. CONCLUSIONS: This paper concludes with the realization that both groups of epidemiologists have the challenge of correcting the biases inculcated over many years. Trust needs to be established between industry and non-industry-based epidemiologists through greater acceptance on the part of the latter and exemplary conduct on the part of the former to overcome past practice records.