Recommendation #1: (1a)
ASN should enter into partnerships and other agreements only when these partnerships or agreements are supported exclusively by membership resources or not-for-profit entities with no conflicts of interest.
Recommendation #1: (1b)
ASN should develop a rigorous, transparent approach to co-sponsoring and managing all activities financially supported by “entities and/or individuals at interest.” Key to the second alternative are management approaches intended to minimize bias and enhance transparency such as the establishment of an independent advisory group reporting directly to the ASN Board and charged with reviewing proposed activities co-sponsored by entities and/or individuals at interest and the development and implementation of guidelines for avoiding conflicts of interests of individuals.
ASN publications should include a front-of-the-publication label that describes three key study characteristics: 1) the type of evidence presented in the study (e.g. observational, RCT, discovery, mechanistic, etc.), 2) the study finding’s most proper use(s) (e.g., draw conclusions/inform policy, hypothesis generation, or increase basic knowledge) and 3) the quality of evidence (Low or Moderate or High based on specified GRADE criteria).
ASN should bolster its efforts to engage the public and media in more effective dialogue among its members, the media, and the public.
ASN should develop guidelines for its members in managing and conducting nutrition research funded by entities at interest – often those with a financial stake in the outcomes of the funded work.
ASN should commission independent audits of its adherence to adopted policies and practices intended to heighten and maintain public trust in nutrition science.
ASN should develop comprehensive conflict of interest disclosure statements that cover financial and other conflict of interest sources that serve as a model in nutrition science for use by its members, other stakeholder groups, and staff.