Literature DB >> 19357216

Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.

Sylvia Rowe1, Nick Alexander, Fergus M Clydesdale, Rhona S Applebaum, Stephanie Atkinson, Richard M Black, Johanna T Dwyer, Eric Hentges, Nancy A Higley, Michael Lefevre, Joanne R Lupton, Sanford A Miller, Doris L Tancredi, Connie M Weaver, Catherine E Woteki, Elaine Wedral.   

Abstract

There has been significant public debate about the susceptibility of research to biases of various kinds. The dialogue has extended to the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences, the mass media, government advisory bodies, and beyond. Whereas biases can come from myriad sources, the overwhelming focus of the discussion to date has been on industry-funded science. Given the critical role that industry has played and will continue to play in the research process, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) North America Working Group on Guiding Principles has, in this article, proposed conflict-of-interest guidelines regarding industry funding to protect the integrity and credibility of the scientific record, particularly with respect to health, nutrition, and food-safety science. Eight principles are enumerated, which specify the ground rules for industry-sponsored research. This article, which issues a challenge to the broader scientific community to address all bias issues, is only a first step; the document is intended to be dynamic, prompting ongoing discussion and refinement. In the conduct of public/private research relationships, all relevant parties shall 1) conduct or sponsor research that is factual, transparent, and designed objectively, and, according to accepted principles of scientific inquiry, the research design will generate an appropriately phrased hypothesis and the research will answer the appropriate questions, rather than favor a particular outcome; 2) require control of both study design and research itself to remain with scientific investigators; 3) not offer or accept remuneration geared to the outcome of a research project; 4) ensure, before the commencement of studies, that there is a written agreement that the investigative team has the freedom and obligation to attempt to publish the findings within some specified time frame; 5) require, in publications and conference presentations, full signed disclosure of all financial interests; 6) not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry-sponsored publications or presentations; 7) guarantee accessibility to all data and control of statistical analysis by investigators and appropriate auditors/reviewers; 8) require that academic researchers, when they work in contract research organizations (CRO) or act as contract researchers, make clear statements of their affiliation; and require that such researchers publish only under the auspices of the CRO.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19357216     DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27604

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0002-9165            Impact factor:   7.045


  18 in total

1.  Perspective: NutriGrade: A Scoring System to Assess and Judge the Meta-Evidence of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies in Nutrition Research.

Authors:  Lukas Schwingshackl; Sven Knüppel; Carolina Schwedhelm; Georg Hoffmann; Benjamin Missbach; Marta Stelmach-Mardas; Stefan Dietrich; Fabian Eichelmann; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Khalid Iqbal; Krasimira Aleksandrova; Stefan Lorkowski; Michael F Leitzmann; Anja Kroke; Heiner Boeing
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 8.701

2.  Scientific rigor and credibility in the nutrition research landscape.

Authors:  Cynthia M Kroeger; Cutberto Garza; Christopher J Lynch; Esther Myers; Sylvia Rowe; Barbara O Schneeman; Arya M Sharma; David B Allison
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 3.  How can research on plants contribute to promoting human health?

Authors:  Cathie Martin; Eugenio Butelli; Katia Petroni; Chiara Tonelli
Journal:  Plant Cell       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 11.277

4.  Public-private partnerships: the evolving role of industry funding in nutrition research.

Authors:  Jeffrey Zachwieja; Eric Hentges; James O Hill; Richard Black; Maria Vassileva
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 8.701

5.  Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin; Amyre Barker; Angus Dawson
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2012-01-01

6.  The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Tianzhu Tao; Xiaohong Zhao; Jingsheng Lou; Lulong Bo; Fei Wang; Jinbao Li; Xiaoming Deng
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 7.  Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria.

Authors:  James W Conrad; Richard A Becker
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  Conrad and Becker's "10 Criteria" fall short of addressing conflicts of interest in chemical safety studies.

Authors:  Patrice Sutton; Tracey J Woodruff; Sarah Vogel; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research.

Authors:  Esther F Myers; J Scott Parrott; Deborah S Cummins; Patricia Splett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Matthias B Schulze; Miguel Ruiz-Canela; Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.