Literature DB >> 9103347

Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty.

D Blumenthal1, E G Campbell, M S Anderson, N Causino, K S Louis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and determinants of data-withholding behaviors among academic life scientists.
DESIGN: Mailed survey of 3394 life science faculty in the 50 universities that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1993. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2167 faculty responded to the survey, a 64% response rate. OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether respondents delayed publication of their research results for more than 6 months and whether respondents refused to share research results with other university scientists in the last 3 years.
RESULTS: A total of 410 respondents (19.8%) reported that publication of their research results had been delayed by more than 6 months at least once in the last 3 years to allow for patent application, to protect their scientific lead, to slow the dissemination of undesired results, to allow time to negotiate a patent, or to resolve disputes over the ownership of intellectual property. Also, 181 respondents (8.9%) reported refusing to share research results with other university scientists in the last 3 years. In multivariate analysis, participation in an academic-industry research relationship and engagement in the commercialization of university research were significantly associated with delays in publication. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.34 (1.07-1.59) and 3.15 (2.88-3.41), respectively. Variables associated with refusing to share results were conducting research similar to the Human Genome Project (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.75-2.42), publication rate (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and engagement in commercialization of research (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.08-2.82).
CONCLUSIONS: Withholding of research results is not a widespread phenomenon among life-science researchers. However, withholding is more common among the most productive and entrepreneurial faculty. These results also suggest that data withholding has affected a significant number of life-science faculty and further study on data-withholding practices is suggested.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction; National Institutes of Health

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9103347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  63 in total

Review 1.  Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate.

Authors:  T Caulfield; E R Gold; M K Cho
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  The right answer for the wrong question: consequences of type III error for public health research.

Authors:  S Schwartz; K M Carpenter
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students.

Authors:  M S Anderson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 4.  DNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: assessing benefits and risks.

Authors:  D B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  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

6.  Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-09-15

7.  Scientific data from clinical trials: investigators' responsibilities and rights.

Authors:  Hiram C Polk; Talmadge A Bowden; Layton F Rikkers; Charles M Balch; Claude H Organ; John A Murie; Walter J Pories; Markus W Buechler; John P Neoptolemos; Victor W Fazio; Seymour I Schwartz; John L Cameron; Keith A Kelly; Jay L Grosfeld; David W McFadden; Wiley W Souba; Basil A Pruitt; K Wayne Johnston; Robert B Rutherford; Maurice E Arregui; Carol E H Scott-Conner; Andrew L Warshaw; Michael G Sarr; Alfred Cuschieri; Bruce V MacFadyen; Ronald K Tompkins
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-05-03       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  General Clinical Research Centers in the United States make a healthy recovery.

Authors:  F C Luft
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2001-11-15       Impact factor: 4.599

9.  Diagnostic testing fails the test.

Authors:  Jon F Merz; Antigone G Kriss; Debra G B Leonard; Mildred K Cho
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-02-07       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability.

Authors:  M S Wilkes
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2001-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.