Problems for biomedical research at the academia-industrial interface

Abstract

Throughout much of the world, universities have driven towards industrial partnerships. This collaboration, which, in the biochemical field at least, has to continue if potential benefits for patients are to be realised, has brought with it a number of problems. These include the neglect of long-term research in favour of short-term projects, the curtailing of free dissemination of research information within university departments and the biasing of results of clinical trials by the financial interests of the investigators. It is very important that governments, universities, and industry itself address these problems. Universities should monitor the amount of basic, curiosity-driven research that is being carried on, compared with that which is more short-term goal orientated. PhD students and post-doctoral fellows should be exposed to the principles of bioethics early on in their careers. Further work is necessary on the terms of research contracts to protect, on the one hand, the rights of individual scientists and, on the other, industry from rogue scientists. Where problems arise, procedures should be in place for independent reviews to be conducted by bodies such as the Medical Research Council in the UK or the National Institutes of Health in the USA. The conflict-of-interest rules recently introduced for publication in medical journals should be extended to all branches of science.

Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study

“…Collaboration with industry can provide important means to run clinical trials [64,65] and was crucial to the development and ongoing progress of HPS, FOCUS and ELEVATE. This form of support allowed the trialists to finance the drugs necessary for their research, to have funds at their disposal to facilitate important collaborations, and even to provide extra staff or equipment when needed.…”

“…This "uneasy alliance" [5] of potentially competing aims has been likened to "dancing with porcupines" [4,66]. Concerns which have been expressed to date largely relate to the potential for conflict of interests [65,67-70]. The trialists interviewed here were very much aware of the differences between their own research agenda which were focused on developments for patient care, and the commercial agenda of the pharmaceutical companies.…”

Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research

“…26,33 The scientific community must take seriously what can properly be termed the corruption of its integrity where it involves suppression of unpalatable results and failure to declare a financial interest. I am immensely grateful for the support that I personally received from many members of the scientific community, and feel confident that it has some moral resources to put its house in order.…”

G.A.T.S. and universities: Implications for research

“…Nancy Olivieri, David Weatherall, and many others, have given details of problems such as the distortion of the research agenda, the suppression of unwelcome results, the biasing of results for financial gain and the use of questionable results to manipulate public opinion. 6,[41][42][43][44][45][46] These difficulties would considerably increase, if the application of GATS protocols to universities meant that the selection of the research agenda and control of publication became the prerogative of commercial sponsors.…”

“…The serious implications of this have been underlined by David Weatherall when he drew attention to the high proportion of "useful" medical advances which originated in, apparently unrelated, pure research. 46 Equally important to society are new and radical ideas, which are capable of changing the whole way we think of ourselves, and the world we live in. These can grow in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom.…”