Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities

Citation
Mk. Cho et al., Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities, J AM MED A, 284(17), 2000, pp. 2203-2208
Citations number
17
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
ISSN journal
0098-7484 → ACNP
Volume
284
Issue
17
Year of publication
2000
Pages
2203 - 2208
Database
ISI
SICI code
0098-7484(20001101)284:17<2203:POFCOI>2.0.ZU;2-O
Abstract
Context Despite federal regulations on faculty conflicts of interest in fed erally funded research, academic-industry ties are common, and evidence exi sts that financial considerations bias the research record. Public scrutiny of these ties is increasing, especially in cases where researchers have fi nancial interests in the corporate sponsors of their clinical research. Objective To review policies on conflict of interest at major biomedical re search institutions in the United,States. Design Cross-sectional survey and content analysis study conducted from Aug ust 1998 to February 2000. Setting and Participants The 100 US institutions with the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1998 were initially sampled; policies from 89 institutions were available and included in the analysis. Main Outcome Measures Process for disclosure, review, and management of con flicts of interest and specified management strategies or limitations, acco rding to the institutions' faculty/staff conflict of interest policies. Results Content of the conflict of interest policies varied widely across i nstitutions. Fifty-five percent of policies (n=49) required disclosures fro m all faculty while 45% (n =40) required them only from principal investiga tors or those conducting research. Nineteen percent of policies (n=17) spec ified limits on faculty financial interests in corporate sponsors of resear ch, 12% (n=11) specified limits on permissible delays in publication, and 4 % (n=4) prohibited student involvement in work sponsored by a company in wh ich the faculty mentor had a financial interest. Conclusions Most policies on conflict of interest in our sample of major re search institutions in the United States lack specificity about the kinds o f relationships with industry that are permitted or prohibited. Wide variat ion in management of conflicts of interest among institutions may cause unn ecessary confusion among potential industrial partners or competition among universities for corporate sponsorship that could erode academic standards . It is in the long-term interest of institutions to develop widely agreed- on, clear, specific, and credible policies on conflicts of interest.