The "Regulations and Guidelines on Biosafety of Recombinant DNA Research & Biocontainment, 2017" provide stringent guidelines on handling genetically engineered (GE) organisms, including containment levels, disposal, and emergency procedures.
The guidelines classify experiments by risk group and containment level, empower Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBSCs) to manage research safely, and require approval from higher regulatory authorities for high-risk organisms.
These guidelines emphasize protection of public health and environment through biosafety measures for laboratories working with recombinant DNA and hazardous microorganisms.

Conflict of Interest (COI) in Scientific Research per UGC Guidelines

· Conflicts of interest arise when personal, financial, or professional relationships influence the objectivity and integrity of research.

· UGC emphasizes disclosure of COIs to maintain transparency and ethical research practices, including in publications and research governance

Case Study 1 : Coca-Cola’s Covert Funding and Influence in Scientific Research Undermining Public Health Transparency

Coca-Cola created the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness in 2004 to promote research that emphasized hydration and energy balance from sugary drinks, while downplaying their links to obesity and metabolic diseases. The institute’s messaging was misleading, focusing on benefits over harms related to sugar consumption. In 2015, Coca-Cola funded the University of Colorado’s Global Energy Balance Network with $1 million to shift obesity discussions away from calorie intake toward exercise, controlling the institute’s leadership and messaging. Many scientists involved had conflicts of interest due to past Coca-Cola funding or industry ties. This network used studies biased to support Coca-Cola’s agenda, but disbanded after public exposure. This case shows how corporate funding can compromise research independence and erode trust in science. Transparency and disclosure are critical in avoiding such conflicts and protecting the credibility of scientific research. This story highlights the importance of vigilance against disguised corporate influence in health science.

Case Study 2: Philip Morris International (PMI) & the Foundation for a Smoke‑Free World (FSFW)

In 2017 PMI announced the creation of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, pledging up to about US $960 million over 12 years to support research into tobacco harm-reduction.

Tobacco companies have a long history of funding scientific research to protect their business interests, which creates a major conflict of interest. For example, they have supported studies and front-group organisations that appear independent but are actually influenced by the industry, shaping research questions to focus on uncertainty or “harm-reduction” rather than the well-known dangers of smoking. This funding often leads to biased design, selective reporting of favourable results, or suppression of evidence showing health risks from smoking and second-hand smoke. Because the commercial aim of tobacco companies is to continue selling harmful products, their goals directly oppose public-health objectives. Therefore, accepting tobacco-industry funding can compromise scientific credibility, mislead policymakers and the public, and delay life-saving regulations.

Loading...

Prince Singh

Badges

Regulations & Guidelines on Recombinant DNA