Perception, reality, and the political context of conflict of interest in university - Industry relationships

Academic Medicine

Volumn 71, Issue 12, 1996, Pages 1297-1304

  Frankel, Mark S ^a  

^a AAAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; LAW; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH; SCIENCE; UNIVERSITY;

EID: 0030453974     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199612000-00011     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Braybrooke D, Linblom CE. A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process. New York: Free Press, 1970.
2. Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships. JAMA. 1990;263:2790-3.
3. One hundred-second Congress, 2nd session, House of Representatives, Chairman's Report to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Report of the Task Force on the Health of Research, July 1992.
4. Teich AH, Frankel MS. Good Science and Responsible Scientists. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992.
5. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995.
6. Vobejda B. Book rekindles emotional controversy on intelligence and race. The Washington Post. 1994 Oct 21;Sect. A:3.
7. Roush W. Conflict marks crime conference. Science. 1995;269:1808-9.
8. Tallman I. Passion, Action, and Politics. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman, 1976.
9. Edelman M. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing, 1971.
10. Truman DB. The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962.
11. Krimsky S. University entrepreneurship and the public purpose. In DeForest P, Frankel MS, Poindexter JS, Weil V (eds). Biotechnology: Professional Issues and Social Concerns. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1988, pp 34-42.
12. Wiener J. The perils of project-making ventures. Chron Higher Educ. 1995 July 28;Sect. B: 1-2.
13. Blumenthal D. Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: extent, consequences, and management. JAMA. 1992;268:3344-9.
14. Keyworth G. Federal R&D and industrial policy. Science. 1983;220:1122-5.
15. DeForest P. Industrial support of university biotechnology research: an introduction to the issues and perspectives. In DeForest P, Frankel MS, Poindexter JS, Weil V (eds). Biotechnology; Professional Issues and Social Concerns. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1988, pp 5-11.
16. Minsky L. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Inter-governmental Relations, House Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, Sept 29, 1988.
17. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. New Development in Biotechnology - U.S. Investment in Biotechnology. OTA-BA-360. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1988.
18. Blumenthal D. Growing pains for new academic/industry relationships. Health Aff. 1994;13:176-93.
19. Erickson T, Pinck JB. How should we solve the technology transfer puzzle? The Scientist. 1990;11:13, 15-6.
20. Gunsalus CK, Rowan J. Conflict of interest in the university setting: I know it when I see it. Res Manage Rev. 1989;3:13-25.
21. Marshall E. Gene therapy's growing pains. Science. 1995;269:1050-5.
22. Gorman C. Has gene therapy stalled? Time. 1995;Oct. 9:62-3.
23. Begley S. Promises, promises. Newsweek. 1995;Oct. 9:60-2.
24. Meyeroff A. Campus research. San Francisco Examiner. 1982 Mar 26;Sect. A:11.
25. Are Scientific Misconduct and Conflicts of Interest Hazardous to Our Health? One hundred-first Congress, 2nd session, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, House Report 101-688, Sept 10, 1990.
26. Galasso G. Conflicts of interest: panel discusses options for management. Professional Ethics Rep. 1993;VI:1,8.
27. Request for comment on proposed guidelines for policies on conflict of interest. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 1989;18.
28. Rein M. Social Science and Public Policy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976.
29. Schattschneider EE. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960.
30. Mervis J. NIH ethics guidelines draw hostile response. The Scientist. 1989;3:6.
31. Merrifield DB. Some of the voices from the chorus of protest. Science. 1990;247:155.
32. Odza M. Conflict of interest proposals threaten technology transfer. Technol Access Rep. 1989;11:1-2.
33. Professional Ethics Report. Winter 1990;3:1.
34. Edelman M. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970.
35. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Objectivity in research. Fed Reg. 1995;60:35810-9.
36. National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Report 103-28, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 1993.
37. Boulding K. The Image. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1961.
38. Nelkin D. Science As Intellectual Property: Who Controls Scientific Research? New York: MacMillan, 1984.
39. Cohen W, Florida R, Gee WR. University-Industry Research Centers in the United States. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, 1994.
40. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell E, Seashore LK. Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences - an industry survey. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:368-73.
41. Rosenberg SA. Secrecy in medical research. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:392-4.
42. Dickson D. "Leak" rumors fuel debate on gene patient. Nature. 1996; 379:574.
43. Holden C. Company secrets don't stop science. Science. 1996;271:1367.
44. Jacobs M. Secrecy in Science. Chem Eng News. 1996;74:5.