M K Cho1, R Shohara, A Schissel, D Rennie. 1. Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, 701 Welch Rd, Suite 1105, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. micho@leland.stanford.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite federal regulations on faculty conflicts of interest in federally funded research, academic-industry ties are common, and evidence exists that financial considerations bias the research record. Public scrutiny of these ties is increasing, especially in cases where researchers have financial interests in the corporate sponsors of their clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To review policies on conflict of interest at major biomedical research institutions in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and content analysis study conducted from August 1998 to February 2000. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 100 US institutions with the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1998 were initially sampled; policies from 89 institutions were available and included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process for disclosure, review, and management of conflicts of interest and specified management strategies or limitations, according to the institutions' faculty/staff conflict of interest policies. RESULTS: Content of the conflict of interest policies varied widely across institutions. Fifty-five percent of policies (n = 49) required disclosures from all faculty while 45% (n = 40) required them only from principal investigators or those conducting research. Nineteen percent of policies (n = 17) specified limits on faculty financial interests in corporate sponsors of research, 12% (n = 11) specified limits on permissible delays in publication, and 4% (n = 4) prohibited student involvement in work sponsored by a company in which the faculty mentor had a financial interest. CONCLUSIONS: Most policies on conflict of interest in our sample of major research institutions in the United States lack specificity about the kinds of relationships with industry that are permitted or prohibited. Wide variation in management of conflicts of interest among institutions may cause unnecessary confusion among potential industrial partners or competition among universities for corporate sponsorship that could erode academic standards. It is in the long-term interest of institutions to develop widely agreed-on, clear, specific, and credible policies on conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2000;284:2203-2208.
CONTEXT: Despite federal regulations on faculty conflicts of interest in federally funded research, academic-industry ties are common, and evidence exists that financial considerations bias the research record. Public scrutiny of these ties is increasing, especially in cases where researchers have financial interests in the corporate sponsors of their clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To review policies on conflict of interest at major biomedical research institutions in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and content analysis study conducted from August 1998 to February 2000. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The 100 US institutions with the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1998 were initially sampled; policies from 89 institutions were available and included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process for disclosure, review, and management of conflicts of interest and specified management strategies or limitations, according to the institutions' faculty/staff conflict of interest policies. RESULTS: Content of the conflict of interest policies varied widely across institutions. Fifty-five percent of policies (n = 49) required disclosures from all faculty while 45% (n = 40) required them only from principal investigators or those conducting research. Nineteen percent of policies (n = 17) specified limits on faculty financial interests in corporate sponsors of research, 12% (n = 11) specified limits on permissible delays in publication, and 4% (n = 4) prohibited student involvement in work sponsored by a company in which the faculty mentor had a financial interest. CONCLUSIONS: Most policies on conflict of interest in our sample of major research institutions in the United States lack specificity about the kinds of relationships with industry that are permitted or prohibited. Wide variation in management of conflicts of interest among institutions may cause unnecessary confusion among potential industrial partners or competition among universities for corporate sponsorship that could erode academic standards. It is in the long-term interest of institutions to develop widely agreed-on, clear, specific, and credible policies on conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2000;284:2203-2208.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach