Conflict of Interest Taints Nearly a Third of Cancer Studies
Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School. (University of Michigan Health System)
Nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-impact journals disclosed a conflict of interest, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center.
The most frequent type of conflict was industry funding of the study, which was seen in 17 percent of papers. Twelve percent of papers had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.
“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties,” says study author Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., assistant professor of radiation oncology at the U-M Medical School. (more…)
Scientific Suppression: Stamping out dissent
By Brian Martin
Too often, unconventional or unpopular scientific views are simply suppressed.
Brian Martin is Professor of Social Sciences in the School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication at the University of Wollongong.
Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous — especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic’s ideas or the critic personally–by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. (more…)
Medical Leaders to Propose Curbs on Pharmaceutical Conflict of Interest
Only a policy that precludes acceptance of outright financial support from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers can meet the most rigorous standards for independence and integrity.
Calling professional medical associations’ (PMAs) dependence on funding from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers a threat to quality patient care and professional integrity, a group of influential medical leaders today urged these organizations to reduce and eventually eliminate industry contributions. In an article appearing in the April 1 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the authors, which includes past and present leaders of medical societies, said PMAs need to “work toward a goal of $0 contributions from industry,” excepting revenues from journal advertisements and exhibit hall fees. The authors put forth a detailed package of recommendations to guide PMAs in this effort.
This represents the first time that such a distinguished group of leaders in medicine has uniformly sought to restrict ties between industry and medical specialty organizations. Writing as individuals, not as representatives of their organizations, the authors include physicians who have been or are now at the helm of a number of the major PMAs. (more…)
Loading... 
