Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Volumn 89, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1285-1291

  Rowe, Sylvia ^a   Alexander, Nick ^a   Clydesdale, Fergus M ^b   Applebaum, Rhona S ^c   Atkinson, Stephanie ^d   Black, Richard M ^e   Dwyer, Johanna T ^f   Hentges, Eric ^g   Higley, Nancy A ^h   Lefevre, Michael ⁱ   Lupton, Joanne R ^j   Miller, Sanford A ^k   Tancredi, Doris L ^l   Weaver, Connie M ^m   Woteki, Catherine E ⁿ   Wedral, Elaine ^g  

^a SR Strategy LLC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^c The Coca Cola Company   (United States)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^e Kraft Foods Global Inc   (United States)

^f TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g International Life Sciences Institute   (United States)

^h PEPSICO INC   (United States)

ⁱ UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^l Cadbury Adams USA LLC   (United States)

^m PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ MARS INC   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ARTICLE; CONFLICT; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD HANDLING; FOOD INDUSTRY; HUMAN; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; SCIENCE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 65549116900     PISSN: 00029165     EISSN: 19383207     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27604     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Eisman JA, Lorenzo JA. Challenges in science and academic-industry interactions. J Bone Miner Res 2007;22:1654-5.
2. US Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2006. Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ budget/fy2006/ (cited 18 August 2008).
3. Fuglie K, Ballenger N, Day K, et al. Agricultural research and development: public and private investments under alternative markets and institutions. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer735/ (cited 18 August 2008).
4. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 2007;4:e5.
5. Thomas O, Thabane L, Douketis J, Chu R, Westfall AO, Allison DB. Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32:1531-6.
6. Tanaka N, Traisman E, Plantinga P, et al. Evaluation of factors involved in antibotulinal properties of pasteurized process cheese spreads. J Food Prot 1986;49:526-31.
7. Velasco J. Determination of aflatoxin in peanut and cottonseed soap-stocks. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1970;47:414(letter).
8. Pittet A. Keeping the mycotoxins out: experience gathered by an international food company. Nat Toxins 2006;3:281-7.
9. US Food and Drug Administration. Foodborne pathogenic microorganisms and natural toxins handbook. Published January 1992. Updated 28 December 2007. Available from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap41.html (cited 7 March 2008).
10. Davey MW, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, et al. Plant L-ascorbic acid: chemistry, function, metabolism, bioavailability and effects of processing. J Sci Food Agric 2002;80:825-60.
11. Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ. Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;77:204-10.
12. Zhao Y, Martin BR, Weaver CM. Calcium bioavailability of calcium carbonate fortified soymilk is equivalent to cow's milk in young women. J Nutr 2005;135:2379-82.
13. Bremer HW. University technology transfer: evolution and revolution. In: Council on Governmental Relations: 50th Anniversary - Journal of Papers. Washington, DC: Council on Governmental Relations; 1998:25. Available from: http://cogr.edu/docs/Anniversary.pdf (cited 28 March 2008).
14. Norris JT, Youngers JA. Sponsored program offices in higher education: a continuing evolution responding to federal requirements. In: Council on Governmental Relations: 50th Anniversary - Journal of Papers. Washington, DC: Council on Governmental Relations; 1998:33. Available from: http://cogr.edu/ docs/Anniversary.pdf (cited 28 March 2008).
15. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Patents under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Available from http://www. niddk.nih.gov/patient/patent.pdf (cited 1 April 2008).
16. Burkholz H. Giving thalidomide a second chance. US Food and Drug Administration. 1997. Available from http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/ 1997/697-thal.html (cited 7 March 2008).
17. Silverman WA. The schizophrenic career of a "Monster Drug. Pediatrics 2002;110:404-6.
18. Martin JB, Kasper DL. In whose best interest? Breaching the academic-industrial wall. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1646-9.
19. DeAngelis CD. Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA 2000; 284:2237-8 (editorial).
20. Weaver J. Negative health effects of soft drink consumption confirmed in study. Yale Bulletin &Calendar 2007;35. Available from http://www.yale.edu/ opa/arc-ybc/v35.n21/story12.html (cited 5 March 2008).
21. Center for Science in the Public Interest. New aspartame safety review 'perfectly predictable.' Published 12. September 2007. Available from http://www.cspinet.org/new/200709122.html (cited 5 March 2008).
22. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Letter to U.S. Food and Drug Administration from a consortium of consumer groups. 3 December 2007 Available from http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/20071203-final-letter-to- fda-re-proposed-coi-guidance-in-wake-of-erg-report.doc (cited 5 March 2008).
23. Coughlin SS, Soskolne CL, Goodman KW. Case studies in public health ethics. Washington, DC:American Public Health Association, 1997.
24. Oxford University Press. Oxford English dictionary. Available from http://www.askoxford.com/concise-oed/bias?view=uk (cited 22 April 2008).
25. Meredith W. Twenty-six reasons what you think is right is wrong. Healthbolt.net. 14 February 2007. Available from http://www.healthbolt. net/2007/02/14/26-reasons-what-you-think-is-right-is-wrong/ (cited 23 December 2007).
26. The National Academies. Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in the development of reports 12 May 2003. Available from http://www.nationalacademies. org/coi/bi-coi-form-0.pdf (cited 16 August 2008).
27. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Guiding principles. In: Recommendations, tools, and resources for the conduct and management of financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research. Available from: http://opa.faseb.org/ pages/advocacy/coi/ guiding-principles.html (cited 16 August 2008).
28. Bulgar RE, Heitman E, Reiser SJ. Ethical dimensions of the biological and health sciences. Cambridge, United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press, 2002.
29. Bailar JC III. Science statistics and deception. Ann Intern Med 1986; 104:259-60.
30. Allison DB, Faith MS, Gorman BS. Publication bias in obesity treatment trials? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996;20:931-7.
31. Butler D. PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature 2008;454:11.
32. Pencharz PB. An examination of research integrity issues pertaining to Memorial University. January 2007. Available from: http://www.mun. ca/marcomm/public-affairs/issues/pencharz-report-2007.pdf (cited 24 March 2009).
33. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. Peer review policies & practices. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/ (cited 5 March 2008).
34. Nature Publishing Group. Nature's peer review debate. Available from http:// www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html (cited 5 March 2008).
35. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Integrity in Science Watch: groups decry broken peer review process at EPA. 17 September 2007. Available from http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/200709172.html#1 (cited 5 March 2008).
36. Kennedy D. Confidential review - or not? Science 2008;319:1009 (editorial).
37. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/ (cited 5 March 2008).
38. McNeil DG Jr. Gates Foundation's influence criticized. New York Times 16 February 2008. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/ science/16malaria.html?-r=1&sq=gates%20foundation&st=nyt&oref= slogin&scp=3&pagewanted=print (cited 7 March 2008).
39. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding-program.htm (cited 17 August 2008).
40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. COI Toolkit: recommendations, tools, and resources for the conduct and management of financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research. Available from: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/Advocacy/coi/Toolkit.htm (cited 17 August 2008).
41. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Points for consideration in academic-industry relationship agreements. Available from: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/Advocacy/coi/PointsForConsideration-Agreements.pdf (cited 17 August 2008).
42. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Conducting research. Available from: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/Advocacy/coi/investigators- conducting-research.html (cited 17 August 2008).
43. Williamson E. Farming critics fault industry's influence. Wall Street Journal 30 April 2008. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB120951584294254683.html (cited 17 August 2008).