Biotech: Competing Interest Statement after leaving academia I have recently started working on a Biotech startup in the biomedical field, and some of the academic collaborative work I did before being at the company now being published (several publications). This work is in basic research but sometimes it revolves around diseases and that is clearly stated in the papers. The usual &quot;our work provides new treatment avenues for Disease X&quot;. The scope and therapeutic interests of the company are fairly narrow, however broad enough that I am concerned about the impact of not disclosing Competing Interest - I have stock options in the company.
Several hypothetical, but fairly realistic, scenarios:

The company project on Cancer and the paper is in cancer, even though one is a drug and the other is a screening / test
The paper is on immunology and there is no plan whatsoever for the company to be in that space (but who knows in 3 years time)
The paper is about aging in worms.

The question is how to handle this? Disclose that I work for a Biotech company in all of them? In none? And to phrase How to phrase? Would it be enough something like:

Jane Doe is now an employee of Biotech X
This would seem to me to be somewhat in the same class of things as citation. If you fail to cite or fail to disclose when you should, then you have problems. In the current situation, possibly legal problems. If you over cite or over liberally interpret the requirement to disclose possible conflicts, then there is little chance of problems. Consumers of research, whether readers or patients, have a right to know that the best judgement was used in such areas. Failure to disclose is a problem as it calls the honesty and motives of the researcher into question.
As you note in a comment, a conflict in itself doesn't invalidate results, but simply warns others that they need to be certain of results, a bit more than if no conflict exists.
Quite a lot of &quot;research&quot; was published in the climate change (global warming) area where no disclosures were made and the &quot;research&quot; turned out to be propaganda. The tobacco industry was accused of the same thing. But, a lot, likely most, of sponsored research is completely valid. Someone has a &quot;need&quot; to know and is happy to pay for the knowledge.
So, the advice I have, though it isn't my field, is &quot;when in doubt, disclose&quot;. I am, of course, someone who could benefit or suffer from research done well or badly, so I have a vested interest in things being done right. In the pandemic situation at the moment, we all seem to be experimental subjects of one sort or another.