Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Taking Conflicts of Interest Seriously without Overdoing It: Promises and Perils of Academic-Industry Partnerships

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic-industry collaborations and the conflicts of interest (COI) arising out of them are not new. However, as industry funding for research in the life and health sciences has increased and scandals involving financial COI are brought to the public’s attention, demands for disclosure have grown. In a March 2008 American Council on Science and Health report by Ronald Bailey, he argues that the focus on COI—especially financial COI—is obsessive and likely to be more detrimental to scientific progress and public health than COI themselves. In response, we argue that downplaying the potential negative impact of COI arising out of academic-industry relationships is no less harmful than overreacting to it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In fact, Senator Grassley recently criticized the NIH for how it has managed COI and is seeking to strengthen make the disclosure requirements of federally-funded researchers stricter (NIH Fails, 2008).

  2. A lingering fear is that overly restrictive COI regulations may push researchers abroad (Bailey, p. 7). Critics assert that it could be similar what has occurred due to funding restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Yet we should not violate ethical norms even if there is a risk that researchers will leave. For instance, researchers such as Panos Zavos favor human reproductive cloning. But if it ethical analysis shows that that it is inappropriate, then the researchers may be forced to leave U.S. laboratories. Analogously, if researchers refuse, for example, to disclose their COI or divest themselves of their financial interests, they may have to travel elsewhere. Research integrity should not be compromised.

  3. It is important to keep in mind that “selling doubt” is not the only strategy used by tobacco companies and other businesses. Appeals to emotion are quite common and effective in shaping perceptions about the product a company is marketing. Even if scientific studies are not compromised by a company’s behaviors and are free of COI-related problems, subsequent marketing strategies may cloud the ability of both clinical researchers and laypersons to assess information from the studies. For example, the pharmaceutical company that developed OxyContin pleaded guilty to deceptive marketing (Johnson 2007). Thus one must consider not only whether industry partners are likely to interfere with the research process but also how companies will use data obtained from industry-sponsored studies.

  4. An examination of whether ghostwriting is permissible in non-scientific contexts is beyond the scope of this paper.

  5. In fact, the assumption that research will benefit society and not just a small number of individuals has led some scholars to argue that participation in research is morally obligatory.

  6. For example, whether “disclosure” should involve researchers providing information to an “oversight authority” or the “subsequent provision of that information by the oversight body to the public and specific interested parties” continues to be a subject of debate (Sharpe 2002, p. 24).

  7. For instance, controlled studies indicate that reminders about moral codes before taking an exam may help to reduce the incidence of cheating (AAMC, p. 16).

References

  • Angell, M. (2005). The Truth About the Drug Companies. Random House.

  • Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) (2007). The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: A Symposium. Washington, D.C.

  • Bailey, R. (2008). Scrutinizing Industry-Funded Science: The Crusade Against Conflicts of Interest. American Council on Science and Health.

  • Bartz, D. (2008). U.S. FTC reports 14 deals to delay generics in ’07. Reuters. May 23, 2008. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2328640520080523 (accessed June 26, 2008).

  • Cain, D. M., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. (2005). The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin-Dusting, J., Mizrahi, J., Jennings, G., & Fitzgerald, D. (2005). Finding Improved Medicines: The Role of Academic-Industrial Collaboration. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 4, 891–897. doi:10.1038/nrd1879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finder, A. (2008). At One University, Tobacco Money Is a Secret. The New York Times, May 22. Firefighters, Doctors and Nurses Top List as “Most Prestigious Occupations, According to Latest Harris Poll.” The Harris Poll #58. July 26, 2006. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=685 (accessed June 16, 2008).

  • Frangioni, J. V. (2008). The Impact of Greed on Academic Medicine and Patient Care. Nature Biotechnology, 26(5), 503–507. doi:10.1038/nbt0508-503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fred, H. L. (2008). Dishonesty in Medicine Revisited. Texas Heart Institute Journal, 35(1), 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsinger, P. L. (2006). “Uniformed Consent: The Case of Jesse Gelsinger.” In Law and Ethiccs in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest and Liability, by Trudo Lemmens and Duff Waring, 12–32. University of Toronto Press.

  • Gottlieb, S. (2002). New England Journal loosens its rules on conflict of interest. British Medical Journal, 324(7352), 1474. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7352.1474/a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (2006). Scientific Secrecy and Spin: The Sad, Sleazy Saga of the Trials of Remune. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69, 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G. (2008). Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study. The New York Times.

  • Harris, G., & Roberts, J. (2007) “Doctors” Ties to Drug Makers Are Put on Close View." The New York Times.

  • Henry, D. A., Kerridge, I. H., Hill, S. R., McNeill, P. M., Doran, E., & David, A. (2005). Newby, Kim M. Henderson, Jane Maguire, Barrie J. Stokes, Graham J. Macdonald, and Richard O Day. Medical Specialists and Pharmaceutical Industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian Experience. The Medical Journal of Australia, 182(11), 557–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, L. A., & Sulmasy, D. P. (2003). Bioethics, Conflicts of Interest, and the Limits of Transparency. The Hastings Center Report, 33(4), 40–43. doi:10.2307/3528379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (2007). “OxyContin Makers Admit Deception.” The Washington Post.

  • Kaiser Family Foundation (2008). “FDA Approved only 19 New Medications in 2007, Analyst Reports.” Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=3&DR_ID=49767 (10 January)

  • Kolata, G. (2008). “Citing Ethics, Some Doctors Are Rejecting Industry Pay.” The New York Times.

  • Lexchin, J. R. (2005). Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding on Clinical Research. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 39, 194–197. doi:10.1345/aph.1E224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberwitz, R. L. (2005). Education Law: The Corporatization of Academic Research: Whose Interests Are Served? Akron Law Review, 38, 759–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 1–21. doi:10.1509/jppm.25.1.117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B. (2004). “Contracts Keep Drug Research Out of Reach.” The New York Times.

  • Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003). Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. British Medical Journal, 326(7400), 1171–1173. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt Is Their Product. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM). (2002). “Changing Patterns of Pharmaceutical Innovation.”.http://www.nihcm.org/~nihcmor/pdf/innovations.pdf.

  • “NIH Fails To Oversee Grantees’ Conflicts of Interest, Grassley Says.” Kaisernetwork.org, July 11, 2008. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=53250 (accessed July 28, 2008)

  • Niiler, E. (2000). Company, Academics Argue Over Data. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 1235. doi:10.1038/82325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Oil, Pharmaceutical, Health Insurance, Managed Care, Utilities and Tobacco Top the List of Industries That Many People Think Need More Regulation.” (2006). The Harris Poll #78. October 24, 2006. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=705.

  • Powers, M. B. & Preuss, O. P. (1987). "Memo to J. E. Gulick, Subject: Proposed program of filling need for new and accurate beryllium health and safety literature." Brush Wellman Document. January 23, 1987. http://www.defendingscience.org/upload/powers_1987.pdf.

  • Ross, J. S., Kevin, P. H., David, S. E., & Harlan, M. K. (2008). Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. (2006). The Body Hunters. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, V. A. (2002). Science, Bioethics, and the Public Interest: On the Need for Transparency. Hastings Center Report, 32(3), 23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, G. (2004). "Witness Statement for Senate Finance Committee Meeting on FDA, Merck and Vioxx: Putting Patient Safety First?" November 18, 2004. http://www.senate.gov/~finance/hearings/testimony/2004test/111804GStest.pdf.

  • Sismondo, S. (2008). How Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Affects Trial Outcomes: Causal Structures and Responses. Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1909–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somers, T. (2006). "Foundation's stem cell patents impede research, scientists say." The San Diego Union-Tribune.

  • Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating Academic-Industrial Research Relationships—Solving Problems or Stifling Progress? The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(10), 1060–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. L. (2007). Research Sharing, Ethics and Public Benefit. Nature Biotechnology, 25(4), 398–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titus, S. L., James, A. W., & Lawrence, J. R. (2008). Repairing Research Integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonelli, M. R. (2007). Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice. Chest, 132(2), 664–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. (1997). Research suppressed for 7 years by drug company. BMJ, 314, 1145.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Jason Borenstein

  2. Department of Philosophy, BAL 9011, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Yvette E. Pearson

Authors
  1. Jason Borenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yvette E. Pearson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvette E. Pearson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Borenstein, J., Pearson, Y.E. Taking Conflicts of Interest Seriously without Overdoing It: Promises and Perils of Academic-Industry Partnerships. J Acad Ethics 6, 229–243 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9069-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9069-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation