Most Academic Researchers Have Industry Ties
15 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 4th, 2009 // 12:48 pm
The ongoing controversy over conflicts of interest among academic researchers with ties to drug or device makers prompted a little more research. And the results? A mailed survey of 3,080 academic life science researchers at 50 universities in 2007 found that 52.8 percent have some form of relationship with industry within the previous three years, according to Health Affairs.
More specifically, 31.8 percent reported serving as consultants; 23.8 percent were paid speakers; 20.1 percent received research funding from industry as a principal investigator, and 17.7 percent were members of scientific advisory boards. Interestingly, the percent receiving industry research funding actually dropped from 28 percent from a similar survey conducted in 1995.
Why the change? The researchers speculate that investigator dependence on industry may have been reduced by increased NIH funding and university policies that may have impeded academic-industry relationships. “On the other hand,” they suggest, “companies may be reducing their spending on academic research.” Here is the abstract.
Also worth noting is that faculty with industry support were more likely to report trade secrets resulting from their work and experienced prolonged delays in publication. “These findings suggest that data withholding remains a greater (although perhaps diminishing) problem for industry-funded scientists and that university authorities need to remain vigilant that such funding may increase levels of secrecy on their campuses,” the authors noted. Among faculty without industry funding, rates of trade secrecy more than doubled, from 3 percent in 1985 to 7.3 percent in 2006–07.
Hat tip to the WSJ Health blog
Photo courtesy of Dr. Jerome Kassirer, author of ‘On The Take’
Christopher
The endless scrutiny of academics with industry ties continues. Seems that the conflict of interest issue anchors all of this, but rarely do we see ‘conflict of interest’ defined as a *potential* conflict ie where no wrongdoing has taken place but where there is a chance that it might. Instead the presumtion is that academics who are in consulting or other financial relationships are somehow operating favorably toward their funding source and indeed are choosing the ‘wrong’ interest.
Are we to assume that over 50% of academics in such relationships are somehow ‘conflicted’ and engaged in wrongdoing? (I know some will.) Or perhaps should there be some concession made to their better judgment which surely should be considered.
The irony of all this is that while so many academic centers are scrambling to curtail such financial arrangements - which can and often are mutually beneficial - at the same time through their technology transfer offices they are actively and effectively seeking out pharma and biotech companies to acquire and license their research programs.
Much ado about not very much, I think.
Thom
Sorry, Christopher. You seem to have it terribly wrong. These “conflicts” do in fact exist. The issue is whether or not they can be managed.
Back to the drawing board for you.
Christopher
Thom - I think you missed the distinction I was trying to draw. Maybe it was too subtle, so try this. The editors of JAMA said it better than I did:
“Conflicts of interest represent the potential for biased judgment, but are not an indicator of the likelihood or certainty that such judgments or compromises will occur.”
DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A. Reporting financial conflicts of interest and relationships between investigators and research sponsors [editorial]. JAMA. 2001;286(1):89-91.
Thom
I didn’t miss the distinction. You don’t understand the English language. If you see what you just wrote above, the word “potential” is captured within the definition of conflict of interest.
Reiterating “potential” is repetitive, pointless, and completely undermines whatever kind of point you were attempting.
These individuals do, in fact, have conflicts. Whether they can be managed is another question.
Christopher
Thom, your pomposity is breath-taking. I’ll leave it there.
done with all that
Modified Christopher: Thom, you pointed out a mistake; I don’t like you.
Christopher
What a silly comment ‘done with all that’ (or Thom). No, I don’t dislike Thom: why should I? I see no value though spending time discussing a serious issue with someone (safely anonymous) whose responses seem to be driven by being ‘right’ above all else. Did that in high school, but moved on.
cliffintokyo
Chris #1
“…many academic centers are scrambling to curtail such financial arrangements…”
Wrong again!
Academia is only (maybe hastily) arranging to compile accurate registers of faculty financial arrangements which represent conflicts of interest that could lead to biased judgments being made.
When such circumstances arise, staff are morally obligated to disqualify themselves from taking on tasks where they would be called on to make (ethically scrutinised) judgments.
Academia is not discouraging staff from making financial connections, which is what you implied.
Thom had it correct; you did miss the point of your own JAMA quote:
“Conflicts of interest [that already exist] represent the potential for biased judgment…..”
As you say, let’s move on….with more care about being enamoured of our own verbosity.
done with all that
Modified Christopher:pointless discussion; here’s why.
nhokkanen
Bloviating. That’s the word.
Angela Popty
Christopher Fail- is that Charlie Nemeroff?
BP MD
There is no question that many academics are heavily on the take. The most shameful are the KOL consultants and advisors as well as the CME speakers. They’re paid parrots!!
Sven Kerr
ED: Why does the Pink Sheet let you run this site on their clock?
regards,
your mom
Ed Silverman
Hi Sven
Thanks for your question. I’ve tried to answer this before and so I’ll try again. I generally post early in the morning, once in awhile during a coffee break, or after I’ve finished work.
Hope this helps,
ed
vergiG
the politics behind big pharma and modern medicine see link,its not about curing diseases its about profits Baby!Pure greedy profits!!!
http://www.whale.to