Can a good tree bring forth evil fruit? the funding of medical research by industry

British Medical Bulletin

Volumn 118, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 5-15

  Capps, Benjamin ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bias; Conflicts of Interest; Funding effect; Industry; Misconduct; Pharmaceutical industry; Public; Tobacco Industry; University

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE BIAS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SCIENTIST; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; ORGANIZATION; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

ACADEMIES AND INSTITUTES; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CODES OF ETHICS; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

EID: 84976482895     PISSN: 00071420     EISSN: 14718391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldw014     Document Type: Review

References (67)

1. Bernard L, Field, M (eds). Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice. Conflict on Interest in Medical Research, Education and Practice. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009.
2. Rosenbaum L. Reconnecting the dots-reinterpreting industry-physician relations. N Engl J Med 2015;372: 1860-4.
3. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias-the case for careful study. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1959-63.
4. Rosenbaum L. Beyond moral outrage-weighing the trade-offs of CoI regulation. N Engl J Med 2015;372: 2064-8.
5. Relman A. The new medical-industrial complex. N Engl J Med 1980;303:963-70.
6. Drazen J. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1853-4.
7. Stenbrook R, Kassirer J, Angell M. Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea. BMJ 2015;350:h2942.
8. Martinson B, Anderson M, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435:737-8.
9. Krimsky S. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
10. Bekelman J, Yan Li A, Gross C. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65.
11. Lexchin J, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: a systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167.
12. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 2012; doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
13. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke M, et al. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Db Syst Rev 2009;1: 1-23.
14. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson P, et al. Reporting Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias-an updated review. PLos One 2013;3:1-31.
15. Smith R. What is research misconduct? A background paper prepared for the joint consensus conference on misconduct in biomedical research. J R Coll Surg Edinb 2000;30:4-8.
16. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis-learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:8-24.
17. Godlee F. Conflict of interest: forward not backward. BMJ 2015;350:h3176.
18. Loder E. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals. BMJ 2015;350:h2957.
19. Horton R. The BMJ v NEJM-lessons for us all. Lancet 2015;385:2238.
20. Martin B. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In: Geuna A, Salter A, Steinmueller W (eds). Science and Innovation. Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2003.
21. Benner M, Sandström U. Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Res Policy 2000;29:291-301.
22. Moses H, Matheson D, Cairns-Smith S, et al. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 2015;313:174-89.
23. Lewis S, Baird P, Evans R, et al. Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university/industry relationship. CMAJ 2001;165:783-5.
24. Resnik D, Ariansen J, Jamal J, et al. Institutional conflict of interest policies at U.S. academic research institutions. Acad Med 2016.
25. Marks J. What's the Big Deal: The Ethics of Public-Private Partnerships Related to Food and Health. Edmond J. Safra Working Papers, No. 11 Harvard: Harvard University, 2013.
26. Merton R. Science and the social order. Philos Sci 1938;5:321-37.
27. Atkinson-Growjean J. Public Science Private Interests: Culture and Commerce in Canada's Networks of Centres of Excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
28. Kessel M. Restoring the pharmaceutical industry's reputation. Nat Biotechnol 2014;32:983-90.
29. Goldacre B. Bad Pharma. London: Fourth Estate, 2012.
30. Thomas K. Schmidt M. Glaxo agrees to pay 3 billion in fraud settlement. New York Times 2012; July 2.
31. World Health Organisation. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO, 2003.
32. Bates C, Rowell A. Tobacco explained The truth about the tobacco industry in its own words. Tobacco Control; Reports on Industry Activity. University of California. Paper WHO4, 1999.
33. Capps B, Van Der Ejik Y. The tobacco industry, researchers, and ethical access to UK biobank: using the public interest and public good. Am J Public Health 2014;104:1833-9.
34. Lesser L, Ebbeling C, Goozner M, et al. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutritionrelated scientific articles. PLoS Med 2007;4:e5.
35. Edwards G. Should industry sponsor research? If the drinks industry does not clean up its act, pariah status is inevitable. BMJ 1998;317:333-9.
36. Titus S, Wells J, Rhoades L. Repairing research integrity. Nature 2008;453:980-2.
37. Krimsky S. Combatting the funding effect in science: what's beyond transparency? Stan L & Pol'y Rev 2010;21:81-103.
38. Seshia S, Makhinson M, Phillips D, et al. 2014. Evidence-informed person-centred health care (part I): do 'cognitive biases plus' at organisational levels influence quality of evidence? J Eval Clin Pract 2015; doi:10.1111/jep.12280.
39. Steneck N. Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics 2006;12:53-74.
40. Moriarty P. Science as a public good. In: Holmwood J (ed). A Manifesto for the Public University. London: Bloomsbury, 2011.
41. Cope M, Allison D. White hat bias: examples of its presence in obesity research and a call for renewed commitment to faithfulness in research reporting. Int J Obes 2010;34:84-8.
42. Cappola A, FitzGerald G. Confluence, not conflict of interest. JAMA 2015;314:1791-2.
43. Nathan D, Weatherall D. Academic freedom in clinical research. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1368-71.
44. Aviv R. A valuable reputation. The New Yorker-Annals of Science 2014; February 10.
45. Clark A, Choby A, Ainsworth K, et al. Addressing conflict of interest in non-pharmacological research. Int J Clin Pract 2015;69:270-2.
46. Elliott C. Pharma Goes to the laundry: public relations and the business of medical education. Hastings Cent Rep 2004;34:18-23.
47. Katz D, Caplan A, Merz J. All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. Am J Bioeth 2003;3:39-46.
48. Steen R. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing. J Med Ethics 2011;37:249-53.
49. Krimsky S. Defining scientific misconduct: when conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct. Med Law 2007;26:447-63.
50. Effron E, Conway P. When virtue leads to villainy: advances in research on moral self-licensing. Cur Opin Psychol 2015;6:32-5.
51. Hellström, T. Governing the virtual academic commons. Res Policy 2003;32:391-401.
52. Van Looy B, Ranga M, Callaert J, et al. Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Res Policy 2004;33:425-41.
53. Proctor C. Tobacco industry research: collaboration, not confrontation, is the best approach. BMJ 1998;317: 333-9.
54. Blumenthal D. Ethical issues in academic-industry relationships in life science: the continuing debate. Acad Med 1996;71:1291-6.
55. Epstein R. Regulatory paternalism in the market for drugs: lessons from Vioxx and Celebrex. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2005;5:Article 6.
56. Borgert C. Conflict of interest: kill the messenger or follow the data? Environ Sci Technol 2007;41:665-6.
57. Godlee F, Malone R, Timmis A, et al. Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. BMJ 2013; 347:f5193.
58. Smith R. Arguments against publishing tobacco funded research also apply to drug industry funded research. BMJ 2013;347:f6732.
59. Ebrahim S. Shock and awe: waking the dead. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:701-2.
60. Sacristán J, Bolaños E, Hernandez J, et al. Publication bias in health economic studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:289-90.
61. Lenzer, J. Centers for disease control and prevention: protecting the private good. BMJ 2015;350:h2362.
62. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10:712.
63. Anderson T, Good C, Gellad W. Prevalence and compensation of academic leaders, professors and trustees on publically traded healthcare company boards of directors: cross sectional study. BMJ 2015;351:h4826.
64. Tyfield D. A cultural political economy of research and innovation in an age of crisis. Minerva 2012;50:149-67.
65. Begum R, Kolstoe S. Can UK NHS research ethics committees effectively monitor publication and outcome reporting bias? BMC Med Ethics 2015;16:51.
66. Macdonald C. Corporate ethics in the life sciences: can bioethics help? Should it? HEC Forum 2005;17:122-34.
67. Applbaum K. Pharmaceutical marketing and the invention of the medical consumer. PLoS Med 2006; 3:e189.