Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (8):627-630 (2008)
AbstractMore than 40 primary studies, and three recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, have shown a clear association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials and pro-industry results. Industry sponsorship biases published scientific research in favour of the sponsors, a result of the strong interest commercial sponsors have in obtaining favourable results.Three proposed remedies to this problem are widely agreed upon among those concerned with the level of sponsorship bias: financial disclosure, reporting standards and trial registries. This paper argues that all of these remedies either fail to address the mechanisms by which pharmaceutical companies’ sponsorship leads to biased results—design bias, multiple trials with predictable outcomes, fraud, rhetorical effects and publication bias—or else only inadequately address those mechanisms. As a result, the policies normally proposed for dealing with sponsorship bias are unable to eliminate it. Only completely separating public clinical research from pharmaceutical industry funding can eliminate sponsorship bias
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Pharmaceutical Company Funding and its Consequences: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Sergio Sismondo - manuscript
Citations of this work
The Promise and Perils of Industry‐Funded Science.Bennett Holman & Kevin C. Elliott - 2018 - Philosophy Compass 13 (11).
What is epistemically wrong with research affected by sponsorship bias? The evidential account.Alexander Reutlinger - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10 (2):1-26.
How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making?Maya J. Goldenberg - 2013 - Social Epistemology (TBA):1-28.
How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making?Maya J. Goldenberg - 2015 - Social Epistemology 29 (1):3-30.
Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity.Kevin C. Elliott - 2018 - Philosophy of Science 85 (5):857-868.
Similar books and articles
Ethical Aspects of Sponsorship.Krzysztof Klincewicz - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (9-10):1103 - 1110.
The “Bias” Bias in Social Psychology: Adaptive When and How?James Friedrich - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):335-336.
What Experiment Did We Just Do? Counterfactual Error Statistics and Uncertainties About the Reference Class.Kent W. Staley - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (2):279-299.
What Makes a Catholic Hospital “Catholic” in an Age of Religious-Secular Collaboration? The Case of the Saint Marys Hospital and the Mayo Clinic.Keith M. Swetz, Mary E. Crowley & T. Dean Maines - 2013 - HEC Forum 25 (2):95-107.
Exploring Social Desirability Bias.Janne Chung & Gary S. Monroe - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):291 - 302.
Understanding Bias in Scientific Practice.Nancy E. Shaffer - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):97.
Positive Confirmation Bias in the Acquisition of Information.Martin Jones & Robert Sugden - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (1):59-99.
Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications. [REVIEW]Joel Lexchin - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):247-261.
Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
Refusing to Budge: A Confirmatory Bias in Decision Making?Lea-Rachel D. Kosnik - 2007 - Mind and Society 7 (2):193-214.