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: 6629

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, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS.
Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry.
N Engl J Med 1996 Dec 5; 335:(23):1734-9
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/335/23/1734


Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Recent research on academic-industrial research relationships in the life sciences has examined their frequency, benefits, risks, and evolution from the standpoint of industrial sponsors of research. We collected information on the extent and effects of academic-industrial research relationships from the standpoint of faculty members who participate in them. METHODS: We used a mailed questionnaire to collect data between October 1994 and April 1995 from 2052 faculty members (of 3169 eligible respondents; response rate, 65 percent) in the life sciences at the 50 U.S. universities receiving the most research funding from the National Institutes of Health. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of the respondents received research support from industry. Faculty members receiving industrial funds had more peer-reviewed articles published in the previous three years, participated in more administrative activities in their institutions or disciplines, and were more commercially active than faculty members without such funding. However, faculty members receiving more than two thirds of their research support from industry were less academically productive than those receiving a lower level of industrial support, and their articles were less influential than those by researchers with no industrial support. Faculty members with industrial support were significantly more likely than those without industrial support to report that trade secrets had resulted from their work (14.5 percent vs. 4.7 percent, P<0.001) and that they had taken commercial considerations into account when choosing research topics (35 percent vs. 14 percent, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Faculty members with industrial research support are at least as productive academically as those without such support and are more productive commercially. However, faculty members who have research relationships with
industry are more likely to restrict their communication with colleagues, and high levels of industrial support may be associated with less academic activity without evidence of proportional increases in commercial productivity.

Keywords:
*analytic survey/United States/relationship between researchers, academic institutions and industry/drug company sponsored research/academic freedom/biotechnology/bioethics/conflict of interest/ETHICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTION: LINKS BETWEEN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND INDUSTRY/SPONSORSHIP: INDIVIDUALS/SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH Biology/economics* Biomedical Research* Communication Data Collection Faculty/statistics & numerical data* Industry/economics* Information Dissemination Interinstitutional Relations Interprofessional Relations Publishing/trends Research Support* Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. Risk Assessment* United States Universities/economics

 

  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








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909