Is it unethical to promote something in which you have a financial or other personal interest even if you would have advocated it anyway? When one is a respected and credentialed former public official, this situation can pose a real dilemma. You sincerely believe it is critical to take certain action; indeed you believed in the importance of this action before you had a stake in it. Your past role in government, academia or industry gives you special credibility that makes your opinion influential in the policy debate…perhaps crucially so. The problem is, you also stand to benefit personally if your advocacy turns the tide of public opinion and moves policy-makers to do as you recommend. Yet if you reveal that personal interest, it will diminish your credibility, making you a less credible and powerful advocate. Perhaps necessary action isn’t taken as a result.

What do you do? It’s a tough question, but an easy answer. You must divulge the interest, whatever it is. You must let the public judge your motives and take the measure of your integrity. If this undermines your influence as an advocate, that is as it should be.

This situation recently faced former Bush Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff, and he botched it. Chertoff has been pushing for full-body scanning devices at airports for years, continuing his pitch after he left his post. The problem is that he picked up a client along the way, a paying client that makes such equipment. He continued to appear in public forums and on television advocating the equipment on the basis of his work in Homeland Security without mentioning his financial interest in the issue, until he was recently asked about it in a CNN interview.

Flyersrights.org, which opposes the scanners even as the latest attempted plane bombing makes them seem more necessary than ever, immediately accused Chertoff of abusing the public’s trust. The group, like others who would apparently rather see passengers blown to bits than have their naughty bits visible briefly identifiable on a scanner screen reviewed by disinterested strangers, has its priorities muddled, but it is right about Chertoff. Scanner advocates should be just as critical of him. He had an obligation to reveal his conflict of interest as soon as it appeared.

Optional Ethics homework: Make a list of other well-intentioned advocates who have personal, and not immediately disclosed, interests in advancing a product, policy or cause in addition to their sincere belief in it. Examples: Al Gore; climate change scientists; climate change skeptics funded by energy companies; bloggers who accept free products to review on-line; doctors who prescribe drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical companies who pay them for consulting or speaking engagements; Sen. Baucus, who probably believes that his girlfriend really was a good candidate to be a Montana U.S. Attorney.

There are many, many more.