Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 43–48 | Cite as

Problems for biomedical research at the academia-industrial interface

  • David Weatherall
Article

Abstract

Throughout much of the world, universities have driven towards industrial partnerships. This collaboration, which, in the biochemical field at least, has to continue if potential benefits for patients are to be realised, has brought with it a number of problems. These include the neglect of long-term research in favour of short-term projects, the curtailing of free dissemination of research information within university departments and the biasing of results of clinical trials by the financial interests of the investigators.

It is very important that governments, universities, and industry itself address these problems. Universities should monitor the amount of basic, curiosity-driven research that is being carried on, compared with that which is more short-term goal orientated. PhD students and post-doctoral fellows should be exposed to the principles of bioethics early on in their careers. Further work is necessary on the terms of research contracts to protect, on the one hand, the rights of individual scientists and, on the other, industry from rogue scientists. Where problems arise, procedures should be in place for independent reviews to be conducted by bodies such as the Medical Research Council in the UK or the National Institutes of Health in the USA. The conflict-of-interest rules recently introduced for publication in medical journals should be extended to all branches of science.

Keywords

biomedical research conflict of interest commercialisation of science 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anon. (2001) Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature 409: 119.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olivieri, Nancy F. (2003) Patients’ health or company profits? The Toronto story, Science and Engineering Ethics 9: xx-xx.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHO (2002) Genomics and Global Health, WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Comroe, J.H. and Dripps, R.D. (1977) The Top Ten Clinical Advances in Cardiovascular-Pulmonary Medicine and Surgery Between 1945 and 1975: How They Came About, 2 vols. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nadis, S. (2000) Med school to relax rules on business links? Nature, 403: 818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holden, C. (2000) NEJM admits breaking its own tough rules. Science: 287:1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stelfox, H.T., Chua, G., O’Rourke, K. & Detsky, A.S. (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New England Journal of Medicine 338: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedberg, M. Saffran, B., Stinson, T.J., Nelson, W. & Bennett, C.L. (1999) Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. Journal of the American Medical Association 282: 1453–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eichenwald, K., Kolata, G. (1999) Research for hire. New York Times 16 March 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carney, S.I., Nair, K.R., Sales, M.A. & Walsh, J. (2001) Pharmaceutical industry sponsored meetings: good value or just a free meal? Internal Medicine 31: 488–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Angell, M. (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? New England Journal of Medicine 342:1516–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smaglik, P. (2000) Gene therapy institute denies that errors led to trial death. Nature 403: 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davidoff, F., DeAngelis, C.D., Drazen, J.M., et al (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability, Lancet 358: 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Weatherall
    • 1
  1. 1.Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, John Radcliffe HospitalUniversity of OxfordHeddington, OxfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations