Guides
Part of Institutional claims guide: matching expertise to the actual claim
How to check an expert's funding before quoting their opinion
How to check an expert's funding with CMS Open Payments, NIH RePORTER, NSF Award Search, SEC EDGAR, patent and nonprofit records, and lobbying disclosures.
What to take away
- Confirm identity and current affiliation with a primary record.
- Define the exact question before judging expertise.
- Check methods experience as well as subject knowledge.
- Ask about interests tied to the issue and relevant period.
- Describe credentials precisely instead of using prestige as proof.
How to check an expert's funding starts with the claim, then follows the money and relationships that could bear on it. An expert is not a universal authority. The right source for a medical mechanism may not be the right source for trial statistics, regulation, costs, or patient experience. Verification begins with the claim, then works backward to the knowledge needed to assess it. The framework around source roles sits in the institutional claims and attribution guide.
Photo and credit
The photograph records testimony at a particular hearing. It does not endorse the witness or establish expertise on subjects outside that testimony.
Step 1: define the question
Write the claim as a question that a source can assess. "Is the study good?" is too broad. Better questions identify the design, population, outcome, legal rule, engineering system, accounting method, or historical record involved.
Turn a claim into a question
- Write claim as assessable question
- Identify design, population, outcome
- Name legal rule or method involved
- List skills the claim requires
- Assign multiple sources if needed
List the skills required. A complicated claim may need several sources rather than one impressive title.
Step 2: confirm identity
Check the person's full name, current institution, department, job title, and contact channel. Use an employer directory, professional license database, court record, official biography, or publication identifier as appropriate.
Confirm identity and current role
- Full name
- Current institution
- Department
- Job title
- Contact channel
- Current vs former role
Distinguish current from former roles. An emeritus title, past government office, unpaid affiliation, and active appointment mean different things.
Step 3: test subject fit
Review recent work connected to the narrow question. Note whether the person conducts research, treats patients, audits accounts, designs systems, litigates cases, studies policy, or represents clients. Public communication skill is useful, but it does not replace relevant knowledge. Matching fields to claims matters most for research findings; the scientific evidence comparison shows what each design can support.
Ask the source which part of the claim they can assess and which part needs another field. Record that boundary in the interview notes.
Step 4: test methods fit
A subject specialist may not be trained in the method that produced the result. Check experience with randomized trials, surveys, causal inference, modeling, archival analysis, laboratory measurement, field investigation, or another relevant method. For survey claims, the methods questions in reading a public opinion poll define the needed expertise.
Check methods experience
- Randomized trials
- Surveys
- Causal inference
- Modeling
- Archival analysis
- Laboratory measurement
- Field investigation
Ask what evidence would change the person's conclusion. A source who cannot name any may be offering a fixed position rather than an assessment.
Step 5: review interests
Relevant interests may include employment, consulting, research support, speaking fees, investments, patents, paid testimony, advocacy roles, board membership, close institutional partnerships, or direct involvement in the work.
NIH's page on financial conflicts of interest in funded research explains that, under 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F, an institutional official determines whether an investigator's significant financial interest is related to PHS-funded research and could directly and significantly affect its design, conduct, or reporting. This federal rule applies to PHS-funded research, including NIH-funded research; it is not a general test for every expert or every source of funding.
Disclosure and a conflict determination are separate steps. A designated official's conflict determination is one kind of official record, and proposals, decisions, and data releases each carry different authority.
Step 6: ask direct questions
Use wording tied to the assignment:
- Did you, your lab, or your institution work on this research?
- Have you received funding, fees, travel, equipment, or other support from an interested party?
- Do you hold relevant patents, investments, board roles, or paid advisory positions?
- Have you testified, litigated, campaigned, or advocated on this issue?
- Is there another relationship readers would need to assess your comment?
Set a time window that fits the story. Preserve the answers and ask again if the assignment changes.
Some payment questions can be checked against a public record. The federal Open Payments program page says reporting entities' payments and other transfers of value to covered health care recipients are collected and published each year.
Providers can review and dispute records attributed to them. The data covers reported United States health industry payments, not every kind of interest.
Where to verify funding
Start with the expert's exact name, current institution, and the period relevant to the story. Match names against affiliations and project details; a same-name record or an award to an institution does not by itself show that the expert personally received money.
- CMS Open Payments:Search the recipient and reporting year. Compare the recipient's identifying details, payment date and amount, nature of payment, reporting company, and any related product; check whether the record is categorized as General Payments, Research Payments, or Ownership or Investment Interests. The records are reported by industry entities and can be disputed, so confirm a relevant match with the source and do not treat a listing alone as proof of misconduct.
- NIH RePORTER and NSF Award Search:Search by investigator or principal investigator, institution, and project title or keywords. Check the award title, listed investigators, recipient institution, project dates, and displayed award information. These searches can identify research support, but a grant awarded to an institution is not necessarily personal income to the expert.
- SEC EDGAR:Search a relevant company and, where applicable, an expert named as an officer or director. Annual reports (Form 10-K), quarterly reports (Form 10-Q), and proxy statements (DEF 14A) may disclose company relationships, ownership, or other material interests; they will not capture every expert's funding or consulting work.
- USPTO patent records:Use Patent Public Search to look for patents naming the expert or a relevant company as an inventor or assignee, then use Assignment Center to check recorded ownership transfers. A patent can reveal a potential financial interest, but it does not by itself establish payment or a conflict.
- Nonprofit funders:Search IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search for the organization's Form 990 filings. Part VIII reports revenue categories such as contributions and grants; Schedule I covers grants the organization makes, and Schedule L reports certain transactions with interested persons. These filings describe the nonprofit's finances and do not necessarily identify every payment to an expert.
- Lobbying records:Search OpenSecrets and the House and Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act databases by organization, client, lobbying firm, issue, and year. These records can point to lobbying or political-spending relationships to ask about, but they do not establish that a lobbyist or funder paid the expert.
Treat these records as leads, not a complete ledger. Note which databases and time periods you checked, compare the results with direct answers, and describe what remains unknown.
Step 7: write the description
Use the narrowest accurate credential: "an epidemiologist who studies vaccine safety" gives more information than "a leading scientist." State the institutional role and relevant relationship in plain language. The science and health reporting guide applies the same narrowness test to expert quotes.
Do not claim independence merely because no conflict appears on a biography. Say which checks were made and what the source disclosed when that context matters.
Expert review card
Check / Result
- Identity confirmed
- Current role confirmed
- Subject fit
- Methods fit
- Direct involvement
- Relevant interests
- Scope of comment
- Evidence that could change view
Common questions
Is a doctorate enough to call someone an expert?
No. Degree field, current work, methods, and fit with the exact question matter.
Should an expert with a disclosed interest be excluded?
It depends on relevance and severity. Disclosure may be enough for one interview, while a formal advisory or decision role may require management or exclusion.
Can a company scientist be a useful source about its product?
Yes, especially for the company's methods and records. Attribute the role and seek outside assessment for contested conclusions.
What if a source will not answer conflict questions?
Decide whether the comment remains usable, describe the unanswered request when material, and find another suitable source.
