Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Introduction
- 25 Research ethics
- 26 Innovation in medical care: examples from surgery
- 27 Clinical trials
- 28 Epidemiological research
- 29 Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher
- 30 Financial conflict of interest in medical research
- 31 Embryo and fetal research
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Index
- References
30 - Financial conflict of interest in medical research
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Introduction
- 25 Research ethics
- 26 Innovation in medical care: examples from surgery
- 27 Clinical trials
- 28 Epidemiological research
- 29 Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher
- 30 Financial conflict of interest in medical research
- 31 Embryo and fetal research
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Index
- References
Summary
Dr. H is an expert on the treatment of depression. A pharmaceutical company, Calaxy Inc. signed a contract with Dr. H and his institution for a multisite three-year study on the efficacy and safety of a new antidepressant, Xanadu, for use in pregnant women. The contract stipulates that Dr. H will have access to all data for final analysis and that all publications based on the study will be submitted for final approval to the sponsor before public disclosure. Dr. H's budget includes money for finder's fees for clinicians who recruit patients into the trial and rewards for clinician–researchers whose patients remain in the trial for the duration of their pregnancy. In the course of the trial, Dr. H becomes worried about potential negative effects of Xanadu on newborns. He reveals his concern to the company, requests immediate access to all the data, and indicates that he will reveal his concerns at an upcoming international meeting. The company refers to a contradictory opinion of an internal data-monitoring committee set up by the sponsor, refuses to provide full access to the data, and points out that researchers have to obtain final approval of the sponsor before any public discussion of the results. Shortly after, Dr. H receives from Calaxy an abstract discussing the interim results of the study, accepted for presentation at an international conference. Dr. H is first author on the abstract, which does not contain any reference to his concerns. Dr. H contacts the chair of his department, Dr. I, who is a remunerated board member of Calaxy.[…]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics , pp. 222 - 230Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
AG New York v. GlaxoSmithKline (2004). http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/nyglaxo21303cmp.pdf (accessed 19 July 2006).
American Association of Medical Colleges (2001). Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress: Policy and Guidelines for the Oversight of Individual Financial Conflict of Interest in Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC: American Association of Medical Colleges (http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/start.htm) accessed 17 July 2006.
American Association of Medical Colleges (2002). Task Force on Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research. Protecting Subjects, Preserving Trust, Promoting Progress II: Principles and Recommendations for Oversight of an Institution's Financial Interests in Human Subjects Research. Washington, DC: American Association of Medical Colleges (http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/start.htm) accessed 17 July 2006.
Anon. (2002). Scientific fraud. Outside the bell curve. A major scientific fraud has just been confirmed. Economist, 26 September.
(2004). The Truth about the Pharmaceutical Industry; How They Deceive us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. (2006a). Financial ties to industry cloud major depression study; at issue: whether it's safe for pregnant women to stay on medication. JAMA asks authors to explain. Wall Street Journal 11 July, A1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115257995935002947.html) accessed 19 July 2006.
(2006c). Medical journal to issue correction on review of depression treatment. Wall Street Journal, 18 July (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115322997681109756.html) accessed 19 July 2006.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. (2006d). Medical reviews face criticism over lapses. Wall Street Journal 19 July, B1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115322997681109756.html) accessed 19 July 2006.
(2006). Industry-sponsored research: an editor's view. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Patients, Physicians and Pharma: Divergent or Congruent Approaches to the Individual and Society, April 2006, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
(2006). Public Science Private Interests: Culture and Commerce in Canada's Networks of Centres of Excellence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Bayh-Dole Act 1980. Pub. L. No. 96–517, s.6(a), 94 Stat.3015, 3019–281980 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. ss.200-121994).
, , and (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 289: 462–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2004). Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170: 477–80.Google ScholarPubMed
(2000). Privatizing the university: the new tragedy of the commons. Science 290: 1701–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. R. (2006). Self-censorship. In Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, ed. and . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 82–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institutes for Health Research (2001). Revolution – CIHR: Towards a National Health Research Agenda. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes for Health Research (http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/26539.html) accessed 17 July 2006.
Canadian Institutes for Health Research (2005). Transforming Health Research in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes for Health Research (http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/cbj_supplement_e.pdf) accessed 17 July 2006.
(2006). From optimism to disillusion about commitment to transparency in the medico-industrial complex. J R Soc Med 99: 337–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I. (2004). In the dark. Drug companies should be forced to publish all the results of clinical trials. How else can we know the truth about their products? New Scientist, 19.
and (2005). Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomized trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330: 753–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2004). Outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 171: 735–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science 312: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidoff, F. (2000). Who's the author? Problems with biomedical authorship, and some possible solutions. Report to the Council of Science Editors, Task Force on Authorship. Reston, VA: Council of Science Editors (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/publications/v23n4p111-119.pdf) accessed 17 July 2006.
, , , et al. (2005). Is this clinical trial registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 365: 1827–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downie, J. (2006). Grasping the nettle: confronting the issue of competing interests and obligation in health research policy. In Just Medicare: What's In, What's Out, How We Decide, ed. . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2002). Industry and the academy: conflicts of interest in contemporary health research. Health Law J 10: 103–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Editorial (2004). Vioxx: An unequal partnership between safety and efficacy. Lancet 364: 1288.
(2003). The Robert L. Levine distinguished lecture series. Patents, product exclusivity and information dissemination: how law directs biopharmaceutical research and development. Fordham Law Rev 2: 477.Google Scholar
and (1995). Institutional conflict of interest. N Engl J Med 332: 262–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferris, L. E. and Naylor, C. D. (2006). Promoting integrity in industry-sponsored clinical drug trials: conflict of interest issues for Canadian health science centers. In Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, ed. and . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 95–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280: 222–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelsinger, P. L. (2006). Uninformed consent: the case of Jesse Gelsinger. In Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, ed. and . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Conflicting interests in Toronto: anatomy of a controversy at the interface of academia and medicine. Persp Biol Med 45: 250–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychol 183: 22–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Stem cell research. Korean cloner admits lying about oocyte donations. Science 310: 1402–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). Committee on Assessing the System for Protecting Human Research Participants. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2006). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians (http://www.icmje.org/) accessed 17 July 2006.
(2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?Lanhan: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (2006). The ethical and legal foundations of scientific “Conflict of Interest.” In Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, eds. and . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2005). Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ 330: 956–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Leopards in the temple: restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene. J Law Med Ethics 32: 641–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemmens, T. (2006). Commercialized medical research and the need for regulatory reform. In Just Medicare: What's In, What's Out, How We Decide, ed. . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 396–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). The human subjects trade: ethical and legal issues surrounding recruitment incentives. J Law Med Ethics 31: 398–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2006). Bigger and better: how Pfizer redefined erectile dysfunction. PLoS Med 3: 429–32 (e132).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2003). Pharmaceutical sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systemic review. BMJ 326: 1167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Antidepressants and children; buried data can be hazardous to a company's health. Science 304: 1576–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). The fight against disease mongering: generating knowledge for action. PLoS Med 3: 425–8 (e191).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Recruiting Human Subjects: Pressures in Industry-Sponsored Research. Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
Revill, J. (2005). How the drug giant and a lone academic went to war. The Observer, 4 December (http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,1658042,00.html) accessed 17 July 2006.
, , , , and (2006). Clinical trial registration: transparency is the watchword. Lancet 367: 1631–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). Research accountability and financial conflicts of interest in industry-sponsored clinical research: a review. Account Res 10: 137–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2006). Female sexual disfunction: a case study of disease mongering and activist resistance. PLoS Med 3: 436–40 (e178).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK House of Commons Health Committee (2005). Fourth Report of Session 2004–2005, Vol. 1: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry. London: The Stationery Office (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf) accessed 31 July 2006.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2004). Financial Relationships and Interests in Research Involving Human Subjects: Guidance for Human Subject Protection. [Federal Register 69, 26393–26397.] Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
and (2004). Introduction to the Olivieri Symposium. J Med Ethics 30: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2006a). International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Open Comments. [Series 2.1, 27 January.] Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/ictrp/comments/en/index2.html) accessed 17 July 2006.
World Health Organization (2006b). International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial Registration Data Set. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/ictrp/data_set/en/index1.html) accessed 17 July 2006.
World Health Organization (2006c). International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Open Comments. [Series 2.2, 5 April.] Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/ctrp/comments/en/index3.html) accessed 17 July 2006.
- 4
- Cited by