Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Olivieri Report — A compelling study of the growing tensions in clinical research

  • Review
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Thompson, J., Baird, P. & Downie, J. (2001) The Olivieri Report: the Complete Text of the Report of the Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the CAUT, Lorimer, Toronto: 540 pages. ISBN 1 55028 739 7.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hopkins Tanne, J. (2000) US faces ethical issues after gene therapy death, British Medical Journal 320: 602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wise, J. (1997) Research suppressed for seven years by drug company, British Medical Journal 314: 1145.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bird, S. & Housman, D.E. (1995) Trust and the collection, selection, analysis and interpretation of data: a scientist’s view, Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 371–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelch, R.P., MD. (2002) Maintaining the public trust in clinical research, New England Journal of Medicine 346: 285–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mann, H. (2002) Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results, The Lancet 359: 406–08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Quoted in O’Hara, J. (1998) Whistle-Blower — a top researcher says a drug under trial poses a risk to patients. MacLeans Nov. 16: 68.

  8. Naimark, A., Knoppers, B.M. & Lowry, F.H. (1998) Clinical Trials of L1 (deferiprone) at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children. A Review of Facts and Circumstances, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Available at: www.sickkids.ca/L1trials.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Naimark, A., Knoppers, B.M. & Lowry, F.H. (2001) Commentary on selected aspects of the Report of the CAUT on the case involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto and Apotex inc. Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Available at: www.sickkids.ca/L1trials.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (2001) Complaints Committee Decision and Reasons. Complainaint: Dr. Laurence Becker; Respondent: Dr. Nancy Olivieri, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Toronto. Dec. 19: pp. 16, 17. Available at www.caut.ca.

    Google Scholar 

  11. The Office of Research Integrity (2001) The Office of Research Integrity Report on Research Misconduct, ORI, Rockville, Md.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Editorial. (2002) The next step: ensuring integrity of scientific research, The Lancet 360: 17.

  13. The Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIRH). (2001) Publication Ethics. Ethical Issues in publishing. Summary of meeting Nov. 6, 2001, CMAJ-CIHR, Ottawa, Ont. Available at: www.emaj.ca/misc/ethics/publicationethics.shtml.

  14. Weatherall, D. (2000) Academia and Industry: increasingly uneasy bedfellows, The Lancet 355: 1574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Djulbegovic, B., Lacevic, M., Cantor, A., Fields, K. K., Bennett, C. L., Adams, J. R., Kuderer, N.M. & Lyman, G. H. (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry sponsored research, The Lancet 356: 635–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kjaegaard, L. & Als-Nielsen, B. (2002) Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in BMJ, British Medical Journal 324: 249–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy, D. (2002) More questions about research misconduct, Science 297: 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Roberts, I., Li Wan Po, A. & Chambers, I. (1998) Intellectual property, drug licencing, freedom of information and public health, The Lancet 352: 726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kennedy, D. (2000) Secrecy and science, Science 289: 724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Also see Kassirer, J.P. (2001) Financial conflict of interest: an unresolved ethical frontier, American Journal of Law and Medicine 27: 2 & 3: 149–62.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schuchman, M. (2002) The Olivieri dispute, no end in sight? Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 487.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Weatherall, D. (1999) Academia and Industry: lessons from the unfortunate events in Toronto, The Lancet 353: 771–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McIlroy, A. (2002) Olivieri, supporters win settlement. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, 13 Nov.: A4.

  24. Gelijns, A.C. & Thier, S.O. (2002) Medical innovation and institutional independence, Journal of the American Medical Association. 287: 77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Etzkowitz, H. (2001) The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 20:2: 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis, S., Baird, P., Evans, R.G., Ghali, W.A., Wright, C.J., Gibson, E. & Baylis, F. (2001) Dancing with the procupine: rules for governing the university-industry partnership, Canadian Medical Association Journal 165: 783–85.

    Google Scholar 

  27. di Norcia, V. (1998) Hard Like Water — Ethics in Business. Oxford University Press, Toronto: 124–134.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nathan, D. & Weatherall, D. (2002) Academic freedom in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 247: 1368–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability, The Lancet 358: 854–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Angell, MD, M. (2000) The pharmaceutical industry—to whom is it accountable, New England Journal of Medicine 345: 1902–04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Editorial. (2002) Just how tainted has medicine become? The Lancet 359: 1167.

  32. Editorial. (2001) The Tightening Grip of Big Pharma, The Lancet 357: 1141.

  33. Moynihan, R., Heath, I. & Henry, D. (2002) Selling Sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease-mongering, British Medical Journal 324: 886–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goldner, J. A. (2000). Dealing with conflict of interest in Biomedical research: IRB oversight as the next best solution to the abolitionist approach, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28: 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Faculty of Medicine. (2001) Harmonization of Research Policies, Schedule 3H. University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Naylor, D. (2002) Early Toronto experience with new standard for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report, Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 453–455.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sudbury, 4 Irish Lane, L4M 6H8, Barrier, Ontario, Canada

    Vincent di Norcia PhD (Professor Emeritus, Philosophy)

Authors
  1. Vincent di Norcia PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent di Norcia PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

di Norcia, V. The Olivieri Report — A compelling study of the growing tensions in clinical research. SCI ENG ETHICS 9, 125–132 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0025-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0025-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation