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

Nutrition Reviews

Volumn 67, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 264-272

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

Bias; Conflict of interest; Industry funding; Scientific integrity

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FUNDING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; CONFLICT; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; FOOD INDUSTRY; HUMAN; NUTRITION; PHYSIOLOGY; RESEARCH; STANDARD;

CAPITAL FINANCING; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FOOD INDUSTRY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; NUTRITIONAL PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCES; RESEARCH;

EID: 67650763450     PISSN: 00296643     EISSN: 17534887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00188.x     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Eisman JA, Lorenzo JA. Challenges in science and academicindustry interactions. J Bone Miner Res. 2007;22:1654.
2. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, fiscal year 2006. Available at: http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ budget/fy2006/. Accessed on August 18, 2008.
3. Fuglie K, Ballenger N, Day K, et al. Agricultural research and development: public and private investments under alternative markets and institutions. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Web site. Available at: http:// www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer735/. Accessed on August 18, 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;32:1531-1536.
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;49:526-531.
7. Velasco J. Determination of aflatoxin in peanut and cottonseed soapstocks [letter to the editor]. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 1970;47:414.
8. Pittet A. Keeping themycotoxins out: experience gathered by an international food company. Nat Toxins. 2006;3:281-287.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap41. html. Published on January 1992. Updated on December 28, 2007. Accessed on March 7, 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 Agri. 2002;80:825-860.
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;77:204-210.
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;135:2379-2382.
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 at: http://cogr. edu/docs/Anniversary.pdf. Accessed on March 28, 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 at: http:// cogr.edu/docs/Anniversary.pdf. Accessed on March 28, 2008.
15. Patents under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Web site. Available at: http://www.niddk.nih.gov/patient/ patent.pdf. Accessed on April 1, 2008.
16. Burkholz H. Giving thalidomide a second chance. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Web site. Available at: http:// www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/ 697-thal.html. Accessed on March 7, 2008.
17. Silverman WA. The schizophrenic career of a "Monster Drug." Pediatrics. 2002;110:404-406.
18. Martin JB, Kasper DL. In whose best interest? Breaching the academic-industrial wall. N Eng JMed. 2000;343:1646-1649.
19. DeAngelis CD. Conflict of interest and the public trust [editorial]. JAMA. 2000;284:2237-2238.
20. Weaver, J. Negative health effects of soft drink consumption confirmed in study. Yale Bulletin & Calendar. 2007;35. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v35.n21/ story12.html. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
21. Center for Science in the Public Interest. New aspartame safety review "perfectly predictable." Available at: http:// www.cspinet.org/new/ 200709122.html. Published on September 12, 2007. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
22. Letter to U.S. Food and Drug Administration from a consortium of consumer groups. Center for Science in the Public Interest Web site. Available at: http://www.cspinet.org/new/ pdf/20071203-final-letter-to-fda-re-proposed-coi- guidance-in-wake-of-erg-report.doc. Published on December 3, 2007. Accessed on March 5, 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 at: http://www.askoxford.com/concise-oed/bias?view=uk. Accessed on April 22, 2008.
25. Meredith W. Twenty-six reasons what you think is right is wrong. Healthbolt. Available at: http://www.healthbolt.net/ 2007/02/14/26-reasons-what- you-think-is-right-is-wrong/. Published on February 14, 2007. Accessed on December 23, 2007.
26. The National Academies. Policy on committee composition and balance and conflicts of interest for committees used in the development of reports. Available at: http://www. nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi-form-0.pdf. Published on May 12, 2003. Accessed on August 16, 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 at: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/advocacy/ coi/guiding-principles.html. Accessed on August 16, 2008.
28. Bulgar RE, Heitman E, Reiser SJ. Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
29. Bailar JC 3rd. Science statistics and deception. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104:259-260.
30. Allison DB, Faith MS, Gorman BS. Publication bias in obesity treatment trials? Int J Obes RelatMetab Disord. 1996;20:931-937.
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. Available at: http:// www.mun.ca/marcomm/public-affairs/ issues/pencharz-report-2007.pdf. Published January 2007. Accessed on March 3, 2008.
33. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research. Peer review policies & practices. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ peer/. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
34. Nature Publishing Group. Nature's peer review debate. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ index.html. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
35. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Integrity in Science Watch. Groups decry broken peer review process at EPA. Available at: http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/watch/ 200709172.html#1. Published on September 17, 2007. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
36. Kennedy D. Confidential review - or not? [editorial]. Science. 2008;319:1009.
37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Research IntegrityWeb site. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/. Accessed on March 5, 2008.
38. McNeil DG Jr. Gates Foundation's influence criticized. New York Times. February 16, 2008. Available at: http://www. nytimes.com/2008/02/16/science/ 16malaria.html?-r=1&sq =gates%20foundation&st=nyt&oref= slogin&scp=3&page wanted=print. Accessed on March 7, 2008.
39. National Institutes of Health. Office of Extramural Research Web site. Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/ funding-program.htm. Accessed on August 17, 2008.
40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). COI Toolkit: Recommendations, tools, and resources for the conduct and management of financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research. Available at: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/Advocacy/coi/ Toolkit.htm. Accessed on August 17, 2008.
41. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Points for consideration in academic-industry relationship agreements. Available at: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/ Advocacy/coi/PointsForConsideration-Agreements.pdf. Accessed on August 17, 2008.
42. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Conducting research. Available at: http://opa.faseb.org/ pages/Advocacy/coi/investigators- conducting-research. html. Accessed on August 17, 2008.
43. Williamson E. Farming critics fault industry's influence. Wall Street Journal. April 30, 2008. Available at: http:// online.wsj.com/article/ SB120951584294254683.html. Accessed on August 17, 2008.