A person reviewing a grant application happens to be a close friend of the applicant. They read the material carefully and are confident they have not added a single point out of favour. If no bias has been found, why disclose the relationship or step aside?
The contemporary political ethicist Dennis Thompson treats a conflict of interest as a set of conditions in which professional judgement about a primary interest risks being unduly influenced by a secondary interest, such as money, family loyalty or prestige. The crucial point is that this describes a risk structure, not proven corruption. Having a conflict does not establish dishonesty, but the absence of detected bias does not make the structure harmless.
A reasonable objection is that excluding every connected person may waste expertise and stigmatise ordinary relationships. That is why responses should be proportionate: disclosure lets others see the relevant connection, independent review reduces reliance on one person's judgement, and recusal is warranted when the risk is serious or cannot be adequately managed.
My view is that a conflict matters before favouritism occurs because entrusted judgement must not only be honest; it must remain reasonably trustworthy. Managing the conflict is not a verdict on someone's motives. It recognises that confidence in our own impartiality cannot verify it, and places judgement within arrangements that others can examine.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308193290812
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8336759/
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.