Participation of academic scientists in relationships with industry

Health Affairs

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1814-1825

  Zinner, Darren E ^a   Bjankovic, Dragana ^b   Clarridge, Brian ^b   Blumenthal, David ^c,d   Campbell, Eric G ^e  

^a BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES   (United States)

^e Institute for Health Policy   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICINE; CONFERENCE PAPER; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FACULTY; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77951540647     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.1814     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Kenney M. Biotechnology: the university industry complex. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press; 1986.
2. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 477 U.S. 303, 312-314 (1980).
3. In addition to research funding, other types of academic-industry relationships exist within academic settings, ranging from gifts for physicians to contracts with the institution. These types of relationships are not induded in this paper.
4. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S, Rao SR, Moy B, Feibelmann S, et al. Institutional academic industry relationships. JAMA. 2007 Oct 17;298(15):1779-86.
5. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(17):1742-50.
6. Thursby JG, Thursby MC. Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci. 2002;48(1):90-104.
7. Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Res Policy. 2000;29(4-5):627-55.
8. Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis KS, Stoto MA, Wise D. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science. 1986;232(4756):1361-6.
9. Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM U.S. licensing activity survey: FY 2007 [Internet]. Deerfield (IL): updated 2008 [cited 2009 Aug 28]. Available from: http:/www.autm.net/FY-2007-Licensing-Activity-Survey. htm
10. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA, et al. Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA. 2002;287(4):473-80.
11. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289(4):454-65.
12. Bok D. Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 2000.
13. Krimsky S. Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield Publishers; 2004.
14. McCrary SV, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, Khan T, McCullough LB, Wray NP, et al. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1621-6.
15. Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at U.S. universities. JAMA. 2000;284(17):2203-8.
16. NIH: National Institutes of Health [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): NIH. Press release, NIH announces sweeping ethics reform; 2005 Feb 1 [cited 2009 Aug 28]; [about 2 screens]. Available from: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/od-01.htm
17. American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS report XXX: research and development FY 2006. Chap 8 [Internet]. Washington (DC): AAAS; 2005 [cited 2008 Jun 15]. Available from http://www.aas.org/spp/rd/06pch8.htm
18. Trapp D. Researchers decry flat NIH budgets, fear delays in treatment advances. Am Med News. 2007 Apr 9.
19. Shuchman M. Commercializing clinical trials - risks and benefits of the CRO boom. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1365-8.
20. Grabowski H. Are the economics of pharmaceutical research and development changing? Productivity, patents, and political pressures. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(2 Suppl 2):15-24.
21. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(23):1734-9.
22. The set of other clinical and nonclinical departments induded those receiving the most NIH funding in 2003: anesthesiology, neurology, neurosurgery, obstetrics/gynecology, otolaryngology, pathology, pediatrics, psychiatry, radiation/oncology, and surgery. The nonclinical category consisted of medical school departments and graduate academic programs in anatomy/cell biology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, and physiology/biophysics.
23. Garfield E. The Thomson Reuters impact factor [Internet]. New York (NY): Thomson Reuters; updated 2004 Jun 20 [cited 2009 Aug 28]. Available from http://thomsonreuters.com/products-services/science/free/essays/impact-factor
24. National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators 2008. Chap 5: Academic research and development [Internet]. Arlington (VA): updated 2008 [cited 2009 Jan 4]. Available from: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/
25. Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, Cairns CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(8):816-23.