corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 4319

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Blumenthal D.
Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: Extent, consequences, and management.
JAMA 1992; 268:3344-3349


Abstract:

Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences remain controversial. The available evidence suggests that such relationships have both benefits and risks for involved parties. Benefits include additional support of academic research, income for academic health centers, the potential for increased scientific and commercial productivity in both industries and universities, and enhancement of the educational experiences of students and fellows. Risks include an increase in secrecy in academic environments and damage to public support for the life science enterprise. The balance of known benefits and risks suggests that academic-industry relationships should be permitted and even selectively promoted. However, there is also a need for enhanced vigilance on the part of academic institutions and government to reduce risks posed by certain types of arrangements, especially those involving human subjects. Enhanced vigilance should include disclosure of all academic-industry relationships by life science
faculty.

Keywords:
*analysis/United States/relationship between researchers, academic institutions and industry/biotechnology/drug company sponsored research/academic freedom/bioethics/conflict of interest/ETHICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTION: LINKS BETWEEN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND INDUSTRY/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: COMPLIANCE, SANCTIONS, STANDARDS/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: DIRECT GOVERNMENT REGULATION/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION/SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH Biological Sciences*/education Biological Sciences*/organization & administration Biomedical Research* Disclosure Federal Government Government Regulation Industry*/organization & administration Information Dissemination Interinstitutional Relations* Policy Making Research Risk Assessment* Universities*/organization & administration

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963