Literature DB >> 8538709

Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences--an industry survey.

D Blumenthal1, N Causino, E Campbell, K S Louis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite growing acceptance of relationships between academia and industry in the life sciences, systematic, up-to-date information about their extent and the consequences for the parties involved remains scarce. We attempted to collect information about the prevalence, magnitude, commercial benefits, and potential risks of such relationships by surveying a representative sample of life-science companies in the United States to determine their relationships with academic institutions.
METHODS: We collected data by telephone from May through September 1994 from senior executives of 210 life-science companies (of 306 companies surveyed; response rate, 69 percent). The sample contained all Fortune 500 companies in the fields of agriculture, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals; all international pharmaceutical companies with sales volumes similar to those of the Fortune 500 companies; and a random sample of non-Fortune 500 companies in the life sciences drawn from multiple commercial and noncommercial directories. Both the survey instrument and the survey methods resembled those of our 1984 study of 106 biotechnology companies, allowing us to assess the evolution of relationships between academia and industry over the past decade.
RESULTS: Ninety percent of companies conducting life-science research in the United States had relationships involving the life sciences with an academic institution in 1994. Fifty-nine percent supported research in such institutions, providing an estimated $1.5 billion, or approximately 11.7 percent of all research-and-development funding received that year. The agreements with universities tended to be short-term and to involve small amounts, implying that most such relationships supported applied research or development. Over 60 percent of companies providing support for life-science research in universities had received patents, products, and sales as a result of those relationships. At the same time, the companies reported that their relationships with universities often included agreements to keep the results of research secret beyond the time needed to file a patent. From 1984 to 1994, the involvement of industry with academic institutions has increased, but the characteristics of the relationships have remained remarkably stable.
CONCLUSIONS: After more than a decade of sustained interaction, universities and industries seem to have formed durable partnerships in the life sciences, although the relationships may pose greater threats to the openness of scientific communication than universities generally acknowledge. However, industrial support for university research is much smaller in amount than federal support, and companies are unlikely to be able to compensate for sizable federal cutbacks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8538709     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199602083340606

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  20 in total

1.  Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy.

Authors:  Linda Rosenstock; Lore Jackson Lee
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Pharmacy benefit management: enhancing the applicability of pharmacoeconomics for optimal decision making.

Authors:  C Daniel Mullins; Junling Wang
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures.

Authors:  S Krimsky; L S Rothenberg
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  The commercialization of clinical genetics: an analysis of interrelations between academic centers and for-profit clinical genetics diagnostics companies.

Authors:  Marvin R Natowicz; Catherine Ard
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?

Authors:  Teddy D Warner; John P Gluck
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2003-11-18       Impact factor: 4.530

6.  Supporting whistleblowers in academic medicine: training and respecting the courage of professional conscience.

Authors:  T Faunce; S Bolsin; W-P Chan
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.903

7.  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

8.  A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines.

Authors:  Jessica S Ancker; Annette Flanagin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-06-07       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology.

Authors:  Katherine A McComas
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2011-02-19       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest.

Authors:  S Y H Kim; R W Millard; P Nisbet; C Cox; E D Caine
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.