I think this depends on how the book relates to the FAQ. If
the book has, or honestly attempts to maintain, the same
relationship to the subject matter as the FAQ, then I see
no reason to separate them. In fact, a book author who is
independent of other commercial interests in the field may
be one of the best qualified to present the FAQ: he/she
knows the material and has the writing skills.
And obviously has a lot of spare time, given the low rate
of financial return on most books. Most authors can hardly
be considered to have enough commercial interest to qualify
for a conflict. But it does happen -- for example, one of
the most persistent promoters of the aspartame hoax is a
professional writer with a serious interest in selling his
books.
In a somewhat grayer but only hypothetical case, I've
considered how I might do a newsletter and/or web site on
diabetes as a full time job. One possibility that arises is
sponsorship. But by whom? Pharmaceutical companies
(pharmcos) have the money. There's a long tradition of
unrestricted grants from pharmcos to scientists, and
medical people would be unlikely to see undue influence in
such an arrangement. But would the general public agree,
would they understand this tradition? Probably some would
and some would not. Some would see the fact that the
pharmcos and I agree on most points to be evidence of
influence, no matter that the agreement preceded the
alleged influence.
Pat Berry writes:
> As a result, I wasn't sure what to do when I recently received a note from
> a representative of http://www.alphabetstreet.com. The note suggested that
> I consider setting up an online bookshop connect to the FAQ. "As our
> affiliate you can earn an additional revenue from 5 to 15% for the books
> and CDs sold via the your site," the note said. "We do the mailing and
> everything else!"
If I were interested in such an offer, I'd assign the
kickbacks (excuse me, commissions) to a suitable recipient
and make it clear on the web link what is going on. Sort of
like public radio stations in the US advertising
1-800-75-MUSIC to buy CDs with a kickback to the station.
(I don't actually know whether 75-MUSIC is run by NPR or a
separate entity, but it's a similar idea.) I might choose
the ADA or the JDF, or a smaller organization such as one
of those which provide insulin to diabetics in third world
countries.
This approach publicizes the availability of the material,
supports a vendor who is carrying the hard-to-find
material, supports a Good Cause (as defined by the
interests of the likely readers), avoids actual conflict of
interest, and no one is fooled as long as the explanation
is carefully worded.
The Association for Dwindling Red Dwarf
Dwellings receives a 5% to 15% commission
on sales resulting from this link.
Scientific periodicals are very careful about revealing
conflicts of interest, sometimes to the point of absurdity.
I've seen some which replace the phrase "conflict of
interest" with "duality of interest". This helps to point
out that many investigators and writers have multiple
interests which could possibly conflict and should be
revealed, but that the individuals are expected to manage
these interests to avoid actual conflicts. I think the
distinction is important.
No one is completely free of competing interests. Recognize
and manage them.
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved