Advertisement

After Disclosure

  • Miriam SolomonEmail author
Chapter
  • 18 Downloads
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 338)

Abstract

Industry funding of research is the greatest known systematic threat to the objectivity of medical research. This paper clarifies the nature and scope of industry funding bias and attempts to quantify it. It reviews four kinds of remedy for industry bias suggested so far: disclosure, standards and regulation, steps towards independence for all clinical research, and case by case assessments, finding most of them helpful but not sufficient. The paper proposes two possible further interventions to reduce the effects of industry bias: qualitative and quantitative discounting of industry results.

References

  1. Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it (Rev a updated). New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. (1990). Conflicts of Interest in Medical Center/Industry Research Relationships. Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Jama, 263(20), 2790–2793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(4), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorsey, E. R., de Roulet, J., Thompson, J. P., Reminick, J. I., Thai, A., White-Stellato, Z., Beck, C. A., George, B. P., & Moses, H., 3rd. (2010). Funding of US biomedical research, 2003–2008. Jama, 303(2), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flacco, M. E., Manzoli, L., Boccia, S., Capasso, L., Aleksovska, K., Rosso, A., Scaioli, G., et al. (2015). Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry Sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(7), 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gıtzsche, P. C. (2013). Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. London: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kjaergard, L. L., & Als-Nielsen, B. (2002). Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 325(7358), 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 326(7400), 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loewenstein, G., Sah, S., & Cain, D. M. (2012). The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. Jama, 307(7), 669–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. A., & Bero, L. (2012). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12, MR000033.Google Scholar
  14. Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., & Bero, L. (2017). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, MR000033.Google Scholar
  15. Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2013). Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research. Accountability in Research, 20(3), 184–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schott, G., Pachl, H., Limbach, U., Gundert-Remy, U., Ludwig, W. D., & Lieb, K. (2010). The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: A qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 107(16), 279–285.Google Scholar
  17. Silverman, G. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Anderson, B. L., Ubel, P. A., Zinberg, S., & Schulkin, J. (2010). Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: A randomised trial of physicians. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sismondo, S. (2008). How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 66(9), 1909–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, R. (2005). Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Medicine, 2(5), e138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations