As a venture capitalist at a US investment fund that supports young pharmaceutical companies, I believe that the misuse of clinical experts by a few hedge-fund investors should not prevent interaction with physicians (Nature 493, 271–272, 280–281; 2013). Increasing regulation would risk stigmatizing physician participation in such expert networks, stifling information flow for investors and ultimately impeding drug discovery.

Academic and hospital conflict-of-interest policies that target or ban engagement with investment firms would need to differentiate between investor types. Hedge-fund investors operate in public markets and aim for a quick profit by betting on variables such as clinical-trial data, sales announcements or regulatory approval. Venture capitalists, by contrast, operate in private markets and aim for company growth over several years before selling to a large multinational or to investors through a public stock-market offering.

Unlike hedge-fund investors, venture capitalists holding public securities as insiders cannot profit by selling stock before the release of data. Furthermore, their interests are not threatened by confidential information leaks because of the longer-term nature of their investments.

It would be preferable for investors to identify conflicts of interest with respect to specific drugs before interviewing physicians, and to educate these experts formally on the potential pitfalls of engaging with investors.