Literature DB >> 27151955

Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? The funding of medical research by industry.

Benjamin Capps1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews analysing the influence of funding on the conduct of research have shown how Conflicts of Interest (COIs) create bias in the production and dissemination of data. SOURCES OF DATA: The following is a critical analysis of current opinions in respect to COIs created by industry funding of medical research in academic institutions. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Effective mechanisms are necessary to manage COIs in medical research, and to prohibit COIs that clearly affect validity of research conduct and outcomes. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: While most hold that industry investment in university research is not a barrier to good science, there are questions about how securing funding opportunities might be prioritized over the risks of potential COIs. It is argued that COIs are inherent risks to research integrity, requiring the strengthening of current governance frameworks. GROWING POINTS: The focus on COIs, created by the ostensibly categorical actions of industry, challenges the evolving research priorities within academic institutions. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Less well-defined COIs are equally culpable to financial ones, in terms of the systemic damage they do to science. So, are they appropriately managed as risks within university research settings?
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Keywords:  Conflicts of Interest; Tobacco Industry; bias; funding effect; industry; misconduct; pharmaceutical industry; public; university

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27151955      PMCID: PMC5127422          DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldw014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Med Bull        ISSN: 0007-1420            Impact factor:   4.291


  45 in total

1.  Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university-industry relationship.

Authors:  S Lewis; P Baird; R G Evans; W A Ghali; C J Wright; E Gibson; F Baylis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-09-18       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Yan Li; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Corporate ethics in the life sciences: can bioethics help? Should it?

Authors:  Chris MacDonald
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2005-06

4.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Should industry sponsor research? Tobacco industry research: collaboration, not confrontation, is the best approach.

Authors:  C J Proctor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-01

7.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good?

Authors:  Jeanne Lenzer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-05-15

8.  Understanding bias--the case for careful study.

Authors:  Lisa Rosenbaum
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Evidence-informed person-centered healthcare part I: do 'cognitive biases plus' at organizational levels influence quality of evidence?

Authors:  Shashi S Seshia; Michael Makhinson; Dawn F Phillips; G Bryan Young
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles.

Authors:  Lenard I Lesser; Cara B Ebbeling; Merrill Goozner; David Wypij; David S Ludwig
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Ethics Guidelines in Environmental Epidemiology: Their Development and Challenges We Face.

Authors:  Shira Kramer; Colin L Soskolne
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-06

2.  Genome Editing for Rare Diseases.

Authors:  Arun Pradhan; Tanya V Kalin; Vladimir V Kalinichenko
Journal:  Curr Stem Cell Rep       Date:  2020-07-07

3.  Conflicts of interest among committee members in the National Academies' genetically engineered crop study.

Authors:  Sheldon Krimsky; Tim Schwab
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Rare Opportunities: CRISPR/Cas-Based Therapy Development for Rare Genetic Diseases.

Authors:  Panayiota Papasavva; Marina Kleanthous; Carsten W Lederer
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.074

5.  Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics, private interests and the public good.

Authors:  Benjamin Capps; Ruth Chadwick; Yann Joly; John J Mulvihill; Tamra Lysaght; Hub Zwart
Journal:  Hum Genomics       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.639

6.  Where Does Open Science Lead Us During a Pandemic? A Public Good Argument to Prioritize Rights in the Open Commons.

Authors:  Benjamin Capps
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 1.566

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.