Academic-industry Relationships Research Articles

Development of a Program to Maximize Industry-Academic Relationships for Nutritional Supplement Research

Abstract Objectives Introduction: Many nutrition supplement researchers face hurdles when seeking non-commercially available materials for research. Challenges include difficulty identifying the correct contacts within a company, arranging material transfer agreements (MTAs), and utilizing the products in the most effective manner for success. The ChromaDex External Research Program (CERP) was established to streamline this process for the compound nicotinamide riboside, a healthy-aging nutritional supplement, commercially available as NIAGEN®. Lessons learned from CERP may be beneficial to other companies and academic researchers looking to build mutually beneficial relationships that expand research and product opportunities. Objective: Evaluate the metamorphosis of the MTA program into CERP, as a model for building relationships between nutrition supplement companies and academic investigators. Methods The process for obtaining a ChromaDex MTA was critically evaluated by various internal and external stakeholders. Recommendations were implemented and a six-month programmatic assessment was conducted. Results From 2013 to 2018, ChromaDex issued 175 MTAs to various academic, governmental, and industry researchers, providing preclinical and clinical materials. Evaluation of the program revealed that several MTA requests were missed, agreements were not enforced, and research relationships were not maximized. To improve, the program was re-branded as CERP and multiple changes were implemented. CERP is now comprised of a core team with support from an internal science team (ST). MTA requests now require an application that is reviewed by the ST (35% approval). The ST utilize rubrics and provide protocol recommendations to increase the project's probability of success. Once accepted into the program, investigators are required to communicate regularly with CERP in the form of progress reports. In turn, CERP provides confidential peer-review of manuscripts and intellectual property recommendations to the investigators. Lastly, a CERP webpage and newsletter were established to improve program visibility and accessibility. Conclusions CERP is serving as a model in the nutrition supplement industry for fostering academic-industry relationships and advancing science. Funding Sources None.

Bioelectronic Medicine-Ethical Concerns.

Bioelectronic medicine (BEM) offers exciting opportunities to treat diseases such as movement disorders and refractory inflammatory disease. The many variations of BEM allow for noninvasive aspects of treatment that might eliminate or reduce the need for pharmaceuticals; therefore, the term "electroceuticals" may be suitable. BEM has been effective for movement disorders and improvement of prosthetic devices. Based on this implication, there is an allowance to impact many focus areas that include but are not limited to autoimmune disease, sensory motor conditions, and neurological conditions. There are a wide array of ethical issues that relate to BEM, which include informed consent, research ethics, innovation, academic-industry relationships, intellectual property, and the conundrum that needs to be addressed when altering the brain such as the issues of autonomy and free beneficence and social justice. The major goal is to heighten awareness of ethical issues and facilitate a proactive ethical approach regarding BEM research.

Academic research in emerging knowledge-based economies

PurposeKnowledge-based economies are popular in the present world. Simultaneously, universities are becoming more responsible for leading economic development through research. As a key contributor to the national economy, it is vital for the construction industry to move beyond outdated practices, and hence, reviewing the role of academic research in empowering the construction industry with knowledge is essential. The purpose of this paper is to focus on how relevant theories conceptualise the expected role of academic research in the innovative development of an industry and the specific location in the Sri Lankan construction industry.Design/methodology/approachFollowing a comprehensive literature review, empirical data were collected from the Sri Lankan context with a mixed approach informed by a pragmatist philosophical stance. The perspective of academia and industry practitioners were deductively obtained through surveys and inductively explored through qualitative interviews.FindingsThis study provides evidence that academic research in Sri Lanka does not contribute effectively to innovative construction management. Due to the absence of industry-focussed knowledge dissemination strategies, the academic–industry relationships are mostly non-research based. The industry lacks in research-informed-decision making, leading to lesser innovations.Research limitations/implicationsThe research conclusions are more applicable to the developing country construction industry contexts.Practical implicationsThe research urges the need for improved academic–industry research collaborations and strategic knowledge dissemination movements.Originality/valueThe research confirms that academic research is a major integral part of the developing construction industry in a knowledge-based economy. In establishing the expected role of academic research, the research revealed the current practice to be under-located. Hence, the research prescribes the necessary actions; research collaborations in major and subsequent requirements.

Enabling Technologies for the Future of Chemical Synthesis.

Technology is evolving at breakneck pace, changing the way we communicate, travel, find out information, and live our lives. Yet chemistry as a science has been slower to adapt to this rapidly shifting world. In this Outlook we use highlights from recent literature reports to describe how progresses in enabling technologies are altering this trend, permitting chemists to incorporate new advances into their work at all levels of the chemistry development cycle. We discuss the benefits and challenges that have arisen, impacts on academic–industry relationships, and future trends in the area of chemical synthesis.

Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines

The possibility that industry is exerting an undue influence on the culture of medicine has profound implications for the profession's public health mission. Policy analysts, investigative journalists, researchers, and clinicians have questioned whether academic-industry relationships have had a corrupting effect on evidence-based medicine. Psychiatry has been at the heart of this epistemic and ethical crisis in medicine. This article examines how commercial entities, such as pharmaceutical companies, influence psychiatric taxonomy and treatment guidelines. Using the conceptual framework of institutional corruption, we show that organized psychiatry's dependence on drug firms has led to a distortion of science. We describe the current dependency corruption and argue that transparency alone is not a solution. We conclude by taking the position that the corruption of the evidence base in diagnostic and practice guidelines has compromised the informed consent process, and we suggest strategies to address this problem.

Courts Complicate Industry-Academia Ties

The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown a wrench into the Innovation Toolkit described by R. S. Williams and S. Desmond-Hellmann in their Editorial about industry/academia partnerships (“Making translation work,” 17 June, p. [1359][1]). The authors encouraged new methods for sharing and profiting from intellectual property, and they suggested that “[c]onfidentiality provisions of industry/academia partnerships can be adjusted” for mutual benefit. The recent Court decision allowed an industry confidentiality agreement to trump a prior academic employment agreement ([ 1 ][2]). This decision was based on a dispute between the pharmaceutical and diagnostics company Roche and Stanford University over rights to the work of a Research Fellow who had been sent by Stanford to Roche (then Cetus) to learn the technique of PCR amplification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Fellow's agreement with Stanford (“agrees to assign” to Stanford “right, title, and interest” in inventions resulting from his employment at the University) was a mere promise, whereas his Roche (then Cetus) agreement (“does hereby assign” to Cetus “his right, title, and interest in each of the ideas, inventions, and improvements” made “as a consequence of [his] access” to Cetus) was an actual assignment and superseded the Stanford agreement as a matter of contract law. This decision could lead to difficulties for the academic-industry relationships supported by Williams and Desmond-Hellmann. The employment contracts used by many academic institutions, including Stanford and the University of California—major biomedical patent holders—still contain the language deemed weak by the Court. Modifying existing contracts retroactively presents a formidable legal and practical task. Although many academics might agree to such modifications of existing contracts, some may not, especially those who have a substantial interest in a company. Furthermore, outside agreements by faculty are often contained in confidentiality agreements, which administrators may not see; requiring disclosure here could be challenging. In addition, companies who want to shed licensing and royalty arrangements with academia can now challenge the intellectual property rights of academic institutions. With the conclusion of this dispute, the patent court system's ability to navigate this issue as Williams and Desmond-Hellmann envisioned has been exhausted. Other agreement approaches are now needed for “delivering the promising results of academic research to industry.” 1. [↵][3] Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems (No. 09-1159, 6/06/11). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6036/1359.full [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text

Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology

Dependence in nanotechnology on external funding and academic-industry relationships has led to questions concerning its influence on research directions, as well as the potential for conflicts of interest to arise and impact scientific integrity and public trust. This study uses a survey of 193 nanotechnology industry and academic researchers to explore whether they share similar concerns. Although these concerns are not unique to nanotechnology, its emerging nature and the prominence of industry funding lend credence to understanding its researchers' views, as these researchers are shaping the norms and direction of the field. The results of the survey show general agreement that funding sources are influencing research directions in nanotechnology; many respondents saw this influence in their own work as well as other researchers' work. Respondents also agreed that funding considerations were likely to influence whether researchers shared their results. Irrespective of their institutional affiliation or funding status, twice as many researchers as not considered financial conflicts of interest a cause for concern, and three times as many respondents as not disagreed financial conflicts of interest in nanotechnology were uncommon. Only a third was satisfied with the way that conflicts of interest are currently managed and believed current procedures would protect the integrity of nanotechnology research. The results also found differences in views depending on researchers' institutional affiliation and funding status.

Clarifying the Dispute over Academic–Industry Relationships

Howard Brody (2011) accuses those generally supportive of academic-industry relationships (“pharmapologists”) of impugning the notion of conflict of interest as they defend such relationships again...

Disclosing Industry Relationships — Toward an Improved Federal Research Policy

Some types of academic–industry relationships are an essential component of the research enterprise in the life sciences. Empirical data show that more than half of academic scientists have such relationships, which most often involve consulting, receiving research funding, and providing scientific advice.1 These and other forms of industry relationships are significantly more common among the most productive academic scientists than among their less productive colleagues. Moreover, every academic institution that is involved in research most likely has some form of institutional relationship with industry.2 Academic–industry relationships have both benefits and risks. Whether through direct sponsorship of research or through advising, . . .

“Hyperscrutiny” of Academic-Industrial Relationships: Potential for Unintended Consequences—A Response

In the current environment, academic-industrial relationships are coming under intense scrutiny from government and other regulatory bodies. Although there clearly have been incidents of abuse in these relationships, academic-industrial collaboration is an engine that drives innovation in the biomedical sciences in this country. The academic radiology community must ensure that the societal benefits of these relationships are not sacrificed via "overregulation."

Inter-organizational collaborative research networks in semiconductor lasers 1975–1994

How does the development of collaborative research networks vary? This paper investigates how research networks have developed in the same technological fields in North America, Europe, and Asia. Exploring inter-organizational co-authored papers published in the Applied Physics Letters from 1975 to 1994, we first map the collaborative research networks and demonstrate that research networks were more developed in scale and scope in North America than in Europe and Asia in semiconductor laser technology. U.S. organizations played a nodal role in networking throughout this time period. Addressing how research networks were more developed in the U.S. than in Japan in particular, this paper concludes that engineer mobility, academic–industry relationships, and entrepreneurial startups were the key factors for the development of collaborative networks during the periods studied.

The Triple Helix: University, Government and Industry Relationships in the Life Sciences

The purpose of this paper is to present data regarding the nature, extent and consequences of the 'triple helix' of relationships between academe, the government and industry in the life and health related sciences. First, we present what is currently known regarding the nature and extent of relationships that exist between government and academic scientists and industry. Next we provide evidence supporting the benefits of these relationships for individual scientists, their institutions and the advancement of science. Then we discuss the potential risks of these relationships. In the next section we provide a set of guiding principles and management and policy suggestions regarding the disclosure and management of relationships among the various sectors. In the final section of the paper we discuss the potential implications of academic industry relationships for governmental industry relationships.

Taking Conflicts of Interest Seriously without Overdoing It: Promises and Perils of Academic-Industry Partnerships

Academic-industry collaborations and the conflicts of interest (COI) arising out of them are not new. However, as industry funding for research in the life and health sciences has increased and scandals involving financial COI are brought to the public’s attention, demands for disclosure have grown. In a March 2008 American Council on Science and Health report by Ronald Bailey, he argues that the focus on COI—especially financial COI—is obsessive and likely to be more detrimental to scientific progress and public health than COI themselves. In response, we argue that downplaying the potential negative impact of COI arising out of academic-industry relationships is no less harmful than overreacting to it.

The Risks And Benefits Of Academic-Industry Relationships

The Risks And Benefits Of Academic-Industry Relationships

Medical Schools Grapple With Drug-Industry Influence

Surveys on the relationships between medical academia and the pharmaceutical industry have raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest. To address the issues, more medical schools are establishing policies and taking steps to limit the pharmaceutical industry's presence and influence on campus, though with different approaches. Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager

Institutional Academic-Industry Relationships

Institutional Academic-Industry Relationships

Institutional academic-industry relationships prevalent and risky

Institutional academic-industry relationships prevalent and risky

Institutional Academic−Industry Relationships

Institutional academic-industry relationships have the potential of creating institutional conflicts of interest. To date there are no empirical data to support the establishment and evaluation of institutional policies and practices related to managing these relationships. To conduct a national survey of department chairs about the nature, extent, and consequences of institutional-academic industry relationships for medical schools and teaching hospitals. National survey of department chairs in the 125 accredited allopathic medical schools and the 15 largest independent teaching hospitals in the United States, administered between February 2006 and October 2006. Types of relationships with industry. A total of 459 of 688 eligible department chairs completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 67%. Almost two-thirds (60%) of department chairs had some form of personal relationship with industry, including serving as a consultant (27%), a member of a scientific advisory board (27%), a paid speaker (14%), an officer (7%), a founder (9%), or a member of the board of directors (11%). Two-thirds (67%) of departments as administrative units had relationships with industry. Clinical departments were more likely than nonclinical departments to receive research equipment (17% vs 10%, P = .04), unrestricted funds (19% vs 3%, P < .001), residency or fellowship training support (37% vs 2%, P < .001), and continuing medial education support (65% vs 3%, P < .001). However, nonclinical departments were more likely to receive funding from intellectual property licensing (27% vs 16%, P = .01). More than two-thirds of chairs perceived that having a relationship with industry had no effect on their professional activities, 72% viewed a chair's engaging in more than 1 industry-related activity (substantial role in a start-up company, consulting, or serving on a company's board) as having a negative impact on a department's ability to conduct independent unbiased research. Overall, institutional academic-industry relationships are highly prevalent and underscore the need for their active disclosure and management.

Stung by Controversy, Biomedical Groups Urge Consistent Guidelines

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology has called for a national guideline on disclosing and managing academic-industry financial relationships. But other groups have cautioned against adopting a single policy.

Emerging Ethical Challenges in Advanced Neuroimaging Research: Review, Recommendations and Research Agenda

The dynamic and ever-evolving nature of neuroimaging research creates important ethical challenges. New domains of neuroscience research and improving technological capabilities in neuroimaging have expanded the scope of studies that probe the biology of the social and ethical brain, the range of eligible volunteers for research, and the extent of academic-industry relationships. Accordingly, challenges in informed consent and subject protection are surfacing. In this context, we provide an overview of the current landscape for neuroimaging and discuss specific research ethics topics arising from it. We suggest preliminary approaches to tackle current issues, and identify areas for further collaboration between neuroimagers and institutional review boards (research ethics committee).