Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forschung und Öffentlichkeit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethik psychiatrischer Forschung

  • 1950 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Vertrauen ist die wichtigste Ressource, eine gegenüber klinischer Forschung eher skeptisch-kritische Öffentlichkeit für die Teilnahme an klinischer Forschung zu gewinnen. Deshalb müssen die zum Schutz der Forschungsteilnehmer entwickelten ethischen und rechtlichen Vorgaben sorgfältig eingehalten, Fehler bei ihrer Anwendung aufgeklärt, Fehlverhaltensweisen korrigiert bzw. geahndet sowie unzulässige Einflüsse transparent gemacht werden. Nicht nur materielle, sondern auch nichtmaterielle persönliche oder ideologische Interessenkonflikte müssen reflektiert werden. Dazu bedarf es auch normativer Vorgaben bzw. einer Kultur der Institutionen, die individuell-persönliche Interessen (z.B. Mitmenschlichkeit, Wissbegier, Leistungsqualität ebenso wie Anerkennung, Geld, Macht) für die Institution und/oder für die Allgemeinheit produktiv zur Wirksamkeit bringen und gleichzeitig auf ein unschädliches Maß beschränken.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  1. Adams CP, Brantner VV (2010) Spending on new drug development. Health Econ 19: 130–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Angell M (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? (Editorial). N Engl J Med 342 (20): 1516–1518

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baltes BB (2001) Psychological climate in the work setting. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (Hrsg) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, S 12355–12359

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277 (15): 1224–1228

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bodenheimer T (2000) Uneasy alliance. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 342 (20): 1539–1544

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bundesärztekammer (2011) Musterberufsordnung für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Deutschland (BÄK). http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/page.asp?his=1.100.1143. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  7. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA, Blumenthal D (2003) Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287 (4): 473–480

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cech TR, Leonard JS (2001) Science and business: conflicts of interest – moving beyond disclosure. Science 291: 989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chalmers l (2002) Lessons for research ethics committees. Lancet 359: 174–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chimonas S, Brennan T, Rothman D (2007) Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship. J Gen Intern Med 22: 184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287 (5): 612–617

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clade H (2001) Drittmittelfinanzierung: Strenge Regeln für das Sponsoring. Dtsch Ärztebl 98 (40): C2043–C2044

    Google Scholar 

  13. Collier J, Iheanacho I (2002) The pharmaceutical industry as an informant. Lancet 360: 1405–1409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Connell CM, Shaw B, Holmes SB, Forster NL (2001) Caregivers’ attitudes toward their family members’ participation in Alzheimer disease research: implications for recruitment and retention. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 15: 137–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cowley AJ, Skene A, Stainer K, Hampton JR (1993) The effect of lorcainide on arrhythmias and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction: an example of publication bias. Int J Cardiol 40 (2): 161–162

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coyle SL (2002) Physician–industry relations. Part 1: Individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 136: 396–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidoff F, De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Nicholls MG, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS (2001) Sponsorhip, autorship and accountability. Ann Intern Med 135: 463–466

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. De Angelis C, Fontanarosa PB (2010) Strengthening the credibility of clinical research. Lancet 376: 234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Angelis CD (2000) Conflict of interest and the public trust. JAMA 284 (17): 2237

    Google Scholar 

  20. De Angelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB (2005) Is this clinical trial fully registered? Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 365: 1827–1829

    Google Scholar 

  21. DFG (1998/2011) Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. http://wwwdfgde/en/research_funding/legal_conditions/good_scientific_practice/indexhtml. Zugegriffen: 05.01.12

  22. Dhanda RK (2002) Guiding Ikarus – Merging bioethics with corporate interests? Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dieperink ME, Drogemuller L (2001) Effects of industry sponsorship of grand rounds. JAMA 286 (8): 918

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dittmann RW, Linden M, Osterheider M, Schaaf B, Ohnmacht U, Weber HJ (1997) Antidepressant drug use: differences between psychiatrists and general practitioners. Results from a drug utilization observation study with Fluoxetin. Pharmacopsychiat 30 (suppl): 28–34

    Google Scholar 

  25. Drazen JM, Curfman GD (2002) Financial associations of authors. N Engl J Med 346 (24): 1901–1902

    Google Scholar 

  26. E.T.H. Zürich (2011) Richtlinien für Integrität in der Forschung und gute wissenschaftliche Praxis an der ETH Zürich. http://www.rechtssammlung.ethz.ch/pdf/414_Integrit%C3%A4t_Forschung.pdf. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  27. Editorial (2001) Look, no strings: publishing industry-funded research. CMAJ 165 (6): 733–733

    Google Scholar 

  28. Editorial (2012) Promoting research integrity: a new global effort. Lancet 380: 1445

    Google Scholar 

  29. Editorial (2002) The controlling interests of research. CMAJ 167 (11): 1221–1221

    Google Scholar 

  30. Editors of Medical Journals (2011) Committee on publication ethics (COPE). http://publicationethics.org/about. Zugegriffen: 04.02.13

  31. European Science Foundation (2003) Press release on registration of randomised controlled trials. http://www.esf.org/esf_pressarea_page.ph…nt=1&language=o&section=66&newsrelease=60. Zugegriffen: 04.02.13

  32. Fava GA (2010) Conflicts of interest. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N (Hrsg) Ethics in Psychiatry. Springer, Dordrecht, S 55–73

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, Critchley JA, Labarthe DR, Kottke TE, Giles WH, Capewell S (2007) Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N Engl J Med 356: 2388–2398

    Google Scholar 

  34. Foy R, Parry J, McAvoy B (1998) Clinical trials in primary care: targeted payments for trials might help improve recruitment and quality. BMJ 317 (7167): 1168–1169

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gibson E, Baylis F, Lewis S (2002) Dances with the pharmaceutical industry. CMAJ 166 (4): 448–450

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gifford F (2010) Pulling the plug on clinical equipoise: a critique of Miller and Weijer. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17: 203–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Harvard Medical School (2011) Faculty policies on integrity in science. http://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/integrity-academic-medicine/hms-policy/faculty-policies-integrity-science. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  38. Helmchen H (2003) Psychiater und pharmazeutische Industrie. Nervenarzt 74: 953–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Holmer AF (2002) Ethics and industry-sponsored research. CMAJ 166 (5): 580

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hösch H (2002) Wissenschaftsförderung und pharmazeutische Industrie in Deutschland. Wien Med Wochenschr 152 (9/10): 238–240

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jull A, Chalmers I, Rodgers A (2002) Clinical trials in NZ: does anybody know what’s going on? New Zealand Med J 115 (1167): 269

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kaebnick G (2001) What about the report? Hastings Cent Rep 31 (2): 16–17

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kassirer JP (2002) A medical early warning system. CMAJ 166 (9): 1151–1152

    Google Scholar 

  44. Koch K (2001) Pharmamarketing: Millionen für die Meinungsbildner. Dtsch Ärztebl 98 (39): C1988–C1989

    Google Scholar 

  45. Korn D (2000) Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 284 (17): 2234–2237

    Google Scholar 

  46. Korn D (2002) Scientific misconduct: the state’s role has limits. Nature 420 (6917): 739

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kuebler C (2002) Ethics and industry-sponsored research. CMAJ 166 (5): 579–580

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis S, Baird P, Evans RG, Ghali WA, Wright CJ, Gibson E, Baylis F (2001) Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university-industry relationship. CMAJ 165 (6): 783–785

    Google Scholar 

  49. Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Krause ED, Johnson S, Halperin G, Bishop M, Berman JS, Schweizer E (1999) The researcher’s own therapy allegiance: a „wild card“ in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol Sci Prac 6: 106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Maj M (2010) Financial and non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatry. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 260: 147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Maj M (2008) Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice. Br J Psychiatry 193: 91–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mann H (2002) Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. Lancet 360: 406–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (2010) Hinweise und Regeln zum verantwortlichen Umgang mit Forschungsfreiheit und Forschungsrisiken. http://www.mpg.de/200127/Regeln_Forschungsfreiheit.pdf. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  54. Merton RK (1985) Entwicklung und Wandel von Forschungsinteressen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  55. Miller FG, Brody H (2007) Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. J Med Philos 32: 151–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Miller PB, Weijer C (2007) Equipoise and the duty of care in clinical research: a philosophical response to our critics. J Med Philos 32: 117–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Möller HJ (2006) Ethical aspects of publishing. World J Biol Psychiatry 7: 66–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Moore T (1995) Deadly medicine: why tens of thousands of heart patients died in America’s worst drug disaster. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  59. Moses H, Perumpanani A, Nicholson J (2002) Collaborating with industry: choices for Australian medicine and universities. Med J Aust 176 (11): 543–546

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mühlhausen H (2002) Zielsetzungen und Hintergründe des Antikorruptionsgesetzes. Wien Med Wochenschr 152 (9/10): 241–243

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lo B, Field MJ (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22942/. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  62. Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A, Rodes J (2003) Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet 361: 1015–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Rao JN, Cassia LJ (2002) Ethics of undisclosed payments to doctors recruiting patients in clinical trials. BMJ 325 (7354): 36–37

    Google Scholar 

  64. Resnik D (2010) Scientific research and the public trust. Sci Eng Ethics: 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  65. Roseman M, Milette K, Bero LA, Coyne JC, Lexchin J, Turner EH, Thombs BD (2011) Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA 305: 1008–1017

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Schein EH (2001) Corporate culture. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (Hrsg) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, S 2788–2792

    Google Scholar 

  67. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E (2008) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Library. doi: 101002/14651858MR000005pub3. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shalala D (2000) Protecting research subjects – What must be done. New Engl J Med 343: 808–810

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Silversides A (2001) Hospital denies that withdrawal of MD’s job offer was related to drug-company funding. CMAJ 164: 1879

    Google Scholar 

  70. Skolnick AA (1998) Drug firm suit fails to halt publication of Canadian Health Technology Report. JAMA 280 (8): 683–684

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tag B, Tröger J (2003) Drittmitteleinwerbung – strafbare Dienstpflicht? Dtsch Ärztebl 100 (43): A2776–A2780

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tenery RM, Jr. (2000) Gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 283 (20): 2655–2658

    Google Scholar 

  73. Teo KK, Yusuf S, Furberg CD (1993) Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized controlled trials. JAMA 270 (13): 1589–1595

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tonks A (2002) A clinical trials register for Europe. BMJ 325: 1314–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. US-Department of Health and Human Services (2011) Office of research integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  76. Wazana A (2000) Gifts to physicians from the pharmaceutical industry: letter. JAMA 283 (20): 2657

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wazana A (2000) Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 283 (3): 373–380

    Google Scholar 

  78. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G (1998) Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 280 (3): 257–259

    Google Scholar 

  79. Weijer C, Miller PB (2007) Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s "Assessing research risks systematically". J Med Ethics 33: 487–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Wolfe SM (1996) Why do American drug companies spend more than $12 billion a year pushing drugs? Is it education or promotion? Characteristics of materials distributed by drug companies: four points of view. J Gen Intern Med 11 (10): 637–639

    Google Scholar 

  81. World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki 2000/2002. http://www.bundesaerztekammer(Deutsche Übersetzung). Zugegriffen: 04.03.04

  82. World Medical Association (2008) Declaration of Helsinki (1964/2008). http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. Zugegriffen: 02.02.13

  83. Lieb K, Klemperer D, Ludwig WD (2011) Interessenkonflikte in der Medizin. Hintergründe und Lösungsmöglichkeiten. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Eschenallee 3, 14050, Berlin, Deutschland

    Hanfried Helmchen

Authors
  1. Hanfried Helmchen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanfried Helmchen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Klinik für Psychiatrie/ Psychotherapie, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Eschenallee 3, Berlin, 14050, Berlin, Germany

    Hanfried Helmchen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Helmchen, H. (2013). Forschung und Öffentlichkeit. In: Helmchen, H. (eds) Ethik psychiatrischer Forschung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35055-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35055-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35054-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35055-9

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation