Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-8tfrx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-29T07:06:17.317Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English

Experimentation by Industrial Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Bennett Holman  and
Justin Bruner
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Industry is a major source of funding for scientific research. There is also a growing concern for how it corrupts researchers faced with conflicts of interest. As such, the debate has focused on whether researchers have maintained their integrity. In this article we draw on both the history of medicine and formal modeling to argue that given methodological diversity and a merit-based system, industry funding can bias a community without corrupting any particular individual. We close by considering a policy solution (i.e., independent funding) that may seem to promote unbiased inquiry but that actually exacerbates the problem without additional restrictions.

Type
Values in Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1008 - 1019
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

We would like to thank the audiences at Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology 2015; the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy; The Science of Evolution and the Evolution of the Sciences; International Conference on Applied Ethics; Rationality, Agency, and Responsibility in Social Groups; and the biennial meeting of the PSA 2016.

References

Anderson, J., Lutz, J., and Allison, S. 1983. “Electrophysiologic and Antiarrhythmic Effects of Oral Flecanide Patients with Inducible Ventricular Tachycardia.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2:105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, R., Stavely, J., and Ortego, L. 2016. “Resolving the Perception of Bias in a Discipline Founded on Objectivity: An Industry Perspective.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35 (5): 1070–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. W. 1981. “Evaluation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Should the Lown Classification Be Used.” In The Evaluation of New Antiarrhythmic Drugs, ed. Morganroth, J., Moore, E. N., Dreifus, L. S., and Michelson, E. L., 113–22. Boston: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Investigators, CAST. 1989. “Preliminary Report: Effect of Encainide and Flecainide on Mortality in a Randomized Trial of Arrhythmia Suppression after Myocardial Infarction.” New England Journal of Medicine 321:406–12.Google Scholar
Conrad, J., and Becker, R. 2011. “Enhancing Credibility of Chemical Safety Studies: Emerging Consensus on Key Assessment Criteria.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119:757–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, H., Elliott, K., Maynard, A., Thompson, P., and Whyte, K. 2014. “Guidance on Funding from Industry.” SRPoiSE.org. http://srpoise.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Guidance-on-Funding-from-Industry-Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Drazen, J. M. 2015. “Revisiting the Commercial-Industry Interface.” New England Journal of Medicine 372:1853–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2014. “Financial Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility.” Erkenntnis 79:917–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graboys, T. B., Lown, B., Podrid, P. J., and DeSilva, R. 1982. “Long-Term Survival of Patients with Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmia Treated with Antiarrhythmic Drugs.” American Journal of Cardiology 50:437–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, B. F. 1981. “Relationship between Effects on Cardiac Electrophysiology and Antiarrhythmic Efficacy.” In The Evaluation of New Antiarrhythmic Drugs, ed. Morganroth, J., Moore, E. N., Dreifus, L. S., and Michelson, E. L., 5–16. Boston: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B. Forthcoming. “Philosophers on Drugs.” Synthese.Google Scholar
Holman, B., and Bruner, J. 2015. “The Problem of Intransigently Biased Agents.” Philosophy of Science 82:956–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howick, J. 2011. The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine. West Sussex: British Medical Journal Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lo, B., and Field, M. 2009. Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research Education and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Lown, B. 1979. “Sudden Cardiac Death: The Major Challenge Confronting Contemporary Cardiology.” American Journal of Cardiology 43:313–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGarity, T., and Wagner, W. 2008. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, T. 1995. Deadly Medicines: Why Tens of Thousands of Heart Patients Died in America‘s Worst Drug Disaster. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Morganroth, J. 1981. “Long-Term Ambulatory Electrocardiographic Recording in the Determination of Efficacy of New Antiarrhythmic Drugs.” In The Evaluation of New Antiarrhythmic Drugs, ed. Morganroth, J., Moore, E. N., Dreifus, L. S., and Michelson, E. L., 103–12. Boston: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morganroth, J., Moore, E. N., Dreifus, L. S., and Michelson, E. L. 1986. “Encainide for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Placebo Controlled and Standard Comparison Trials.” American Journal of Cardiology 58:74C–82C.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morganroth, J., Michelson, E. L., Horowitz, L. N., Josephson, M. E., Pearlman, A. S., and Dunkman, W. B. 1978. “Limitations of Routine Long-Term Electrocardiographic Monitoring to Assess Ventricular Ectopic Frequency.” Circulation 58:408–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, C., et al. 1986. “Efficacy and Safety of Moricizine in Patients with Ventricular Tachycardia: Results of a Placebo-Controlled Prospective Long-Term Clinical Trial.” Circulation 73:718–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnik, D. B., and Elliott, K. C. 2013. “Taking Financial Relationships into Account When Assessing Research.” Accountability in Research 20:184–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, M. Forthcoming. “Financializing Epistemic Norms in Contemporary Biomedical Innovation.” Synthese.Google Scholar
Traulsen, A., Claussen, J., and Hauert, C. 2005. “Coevolutionary Dynamics: From Finite to Infinite Populations.” Physical Review Letters 95:238701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, E. 2015. “Conventional Semantic Meaning in Signaling Games with Conflicting Interests.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4): 751–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkle, R. A. 1978. “Antiarrhythmic Drug Effect Mimicked by Spontaneous Variability of Ventricular Ectopy.” Circulation 57:1116–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zollman, K. 2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity.” Erkenntnis 72:17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar