Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 553–573 | Cite as

Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic review

  • Bonnie E. Glaser
  • Lisa A. BeroEmail author
Article

Abstract

Involvement of industry in academic research is widespread and associated with favorable outcomes for industry. The objective of this study was to review empirical data on the attitudes of researchers toward industry involvement and financial ties in research. A review of the literature for quantitative data from surveys on the attitudes of researchers to financial ties in research, reported in English, resulted in the 17 studies included. Review of these studies revealed that investigators are concerned about the impact of financial ties on choice of research topic, research conduct and publication, but this concern is less among investigators already involved with industry. Researchers approve of industry collaboration and financial ties when the ties are indirectly related to the research, disclosure is upfront, and results and ideas are freely publicized. However, their trust in disclosure as a way to manage conflicts may reveal a lack of awareness of the actual impact of financial incentives on themselves and other researchers.

Keywords

University-Industry Relationships Conflicts of Interest Faculty Surveys Research Support Financial Disclosure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K.S., Stoto, M.A., & Wise, D. (1986) University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science 232(4756): 1361–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumenthal, D. (1994) Growing pains for new academic/industry relationships. Health Affairs 13(3): 176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Louis, K.S.; Anderson, M.S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995) Academic misconduct and values — the departments influence. Review of Higher Education 18(4): 393–422.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Causino, N., & Louis, K.S. (1996) Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine 335(23): 1734–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blumenthal, D. (2003) Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. New England Journal of Medicine 349(25): 2452–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krimsky, S. (2003) Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bok, D.C. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace: the Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyd, E.A., & Bero, L.A. (2000) Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: a case study. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 284(17): 2209–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krimsky, S., Rothenberg, L.S., Stott, P., & Kyle, G. (1998) Scientific journals and their authors’ financial interests: a pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 67(4–5): 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krimsky, S., Ennis, J.G., & Weissman, R. (1991) Academic-corporate ties in biotechnology: a quantitative study. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16(3): 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell, E.G., Louis, K.S., & Blumenthal, D. (1998) Looking a gift horse in the mouth: corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 279(13): 995–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen, J.J. (2001) Trust us to make a difference: ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Academic Medicine 76(2): 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y., & Gross, C.P. (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 289(4): 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lexchin, J., Bero, L.A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. British Medical Journal 326(7400): 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bero, L.A., & Rennie, D. (1996) Influences on the quality of published drug studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 12(2): 209–237.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd, E.A., Lipton, S., & Bero, L.A. (2004) Implementation of financial disclosure policies to manage conflicts of interest. Health Affairs 23(2): 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boyd, E.A., Cho, M.K., & Bero, L.A. (2003) Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Academic Medicine 78(8): 769–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krimsky, S., Rothenberg, L.S., Stott, P., & Kyle, G. (1996) Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications. Science and Engineering Ethics 2(4): 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shamoo, A.E. (2003) Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Campbell, P. (2001) Declaration of financial interests. Nature 412(6849): 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Kolfschooten, F. (2002) Conflicts of interest: can you believe what you read? Nature 416(6879), 360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duderstadt, J.J. (2000) A University For The 21st Century. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cho, M.K. (1998) Fundamental conflict of interest. The BioMedNet Magazine.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alderson, P., Green, S., Higgins, J.P.T., & (eds). (2004) Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.1. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bonnel, P., & Le Nir, M. (1998) The quality of survey data: telephone versus face-to-face interviews. Transportation 25(2): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deeks, J.J., Dinnes, J., D’Amico, R., Sowden, A.J., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D.G. (2003) Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment 7(27): iii-x, 1–173.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Downs, S.H., & Black, N. (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 52(6): 377–384.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grimes, D.A., & Schulz, K.F. (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359(9302): 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hanscom, B., Lurie, J.D., Homa, K., & Weinstein, J.N. (2002) Computerized questionnaires and the quality of survey data. Spine 27(16): 1797–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mulrow, C., & Cook, D. eds. (1998) Systematic Reviews: Synthesis Of Best Evidence For Health Care Decisions. American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pa.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanchez, M.E. (1992) Effects of questionnaire design on the quality of survey data. Public Opinion Quarterly 56(2): 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saris, W.E., Van Wijk, T., & Scherpenzeel, A. (1998) Validity and reliability of subjective social indicators — the effect of different measures of association. Social Indicators Research 45(1–3): 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stroup, D.F., Berlin, J.A., Morton, S.C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G.D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B.J., Sipe, T.A., & Thacker, S.B. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 283(15): 2008–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zaza, S., Wright-De Aguero, L.K., Briss, P.A., Truman, B.I., Hopkins, D.P., Hennessy, M.H., Sosin, D.M., Anderson, L., Carande-Kulis, V.G., Teutsch, S.M., & Pappaioanou, M. (2000) Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 18(1 Suppl): 44–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cho, M.K., & Bero, L.A. (1994) Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 272(2): 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Korenman, S.G., Berk, R., Wenger, N.S., & Lew, V. (1998) Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 279(1): 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lipton, S., Boyd, E.A., & Bero, L.A. (2004) Conflicts of interest in academic research: policies, processes, and attitudes. Accountability in Research 11(2): 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Executive Committee of College of Natural Resources. (1999) Faculty survey on the strategic alliance of the College of Natural Resources (CNR) with Novartis. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee, Y.S. (1996) "Technology transfer" and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    La Puma, J., Stocking, C.B., Rhoades, W.D., Darling, C.M., Ferner, R.E., Neuberger, J., VandenBurg, M., Dews, I., & Tobias, J.S. (1995) Financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research. Attitudes of American doctors and patients. British Medical Journal 310(6995): 1660–1663.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rabino, I. (1998) Societal and commercial issues affecting the future of biotechnology in the United States: A survey of researchers’ perceptions. Naturwissenschaften 85(3): 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. (1995) Federal Technology Transfer and the Human Genome Project (Report No. OTA-BP-EHR-162). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shelley, M.C., Woodman, W.F., Reichel, B.J., & Lasley, P. (1988) On the role of universities and biotechnology in economic development and public policy. Policy Studies Journal 17(1): 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harman, G. (1999) Australian science and technology academics and university-industry research links. Higher Education 38(1): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rahm, D. (1994) Academic perceptions of university-firm technology transfer. Policy Studies Journal 22(2): 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Dierdonck, R., Debackere, K., & Engelen, B. (1990) University industry relationships — how does the Belgian academic community feel about it? Research Policy 19(6): 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goldstein, D.J., & Wilson, M.G. (1996) Perceived conflicts of interest in elinical research: industry and academia. Drug Information Journal 30: 425–432.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bebeau, M.J., & Davis, E.L. (1996) Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research 75(2): 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brody, B.A., Anderson, C., McCrary, S.V., McCullough, L., Morgan, R., & Wray, N. (2003) Expanding disclosure of conflicts of interest: the views of stakeholders. IRB 25(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Campbell, T.I.D., & Slaughter, S. (1995) Protecting The Public’s Trust: A Search For Balance Among Benefits and Conflicts In University-Industry Relationships: Final Technical Report: Science and Technology Policy Initiative, Center for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Taylor, K.M. (1991) The Impact of the Pharmaceutical Industry’s Clinical Research Programs on Medical Education, Practice, and Researchers in Canada: A Discussion Paper. In: Canadian Pharmaceutical Research and Development: Four Short-Term Studies. Ottawa: Department of Industry, Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Campbell, T.I.D., & Slaughter, S. (1999) Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. Journal of Higher Education 70(3): 309-+.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dana, J., & Loewenstein, G. (2003) A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 290(2): 252–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Krimsky, S., & Rothenberg, L.S. (2001) Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and Engineering Ethics 7(2): 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chaudhry, S., Schroter, S., Smith, R., & Morris, J. (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. British Medical Journal 325(7377): 1391–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sackett, D. (2002) A survey of the credibility of identical trial results when generated by independent investigators or by drug manufacturers. Paper presented at the Symposium on “Data Monitoring Committees: Composition & Independence,” at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the Society for Clinical Trials, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Schroter, S., Morris, J., Chaudhry, S., Smith, R., & Barratt, H. (2004) Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. British Medical Journal 328(7442): 742–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lexchin, J. (1993) Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say? Canadian Medical Association Journal 149(10), 1401–1407.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cho, M.K., & Bero, L.A. (1996) The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Annals of Internal Medicine 124(5): 485–489.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Barnes, D.E., & Bero, L.A. (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 279(19): 1566–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Steinbrook, R. (2005) Standards of ethics at the National Institutes of Health. New England Journal of Medicine 352(13): 1290–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Willman, D. (2005, April 21) The Nation; Scientists add clout in NIH fight; Agency researchers who oppose conflict rules hire lawyers who also serve the drug industry. Los Angeles Times.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schafer, A. (2004) Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defense of the sequestration thesis — learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. JAMA: Journal of Medical Ethics 30(1): 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Clinical PharmacyUniversity of CaliforniaSan Francisco
  2. 2.Dept. of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaSan Francisco

Personalised recommendations