Academic-industry Relationships Research Articles

Academic Freedom and Academic-Industry Relationships in Biotechnology

Commercial academic-industry relationships (AIRs) are widespread in biotechnology and have resulted in a wide array of restrictions on academic research. Objections to such restrictions have centered on the charge that they violate academic freedom. I argue that these objections are almost invariably unsuccessful. On a consequentialist understanding of the value of academic freedom, they rely on unfounded empirical claims about the overall effects that AIRs have on academic research. And on a rights-based understanding of the value of academic freedom, they rely on excessively lavish assumptions about the kinds of activities that academic freedom protects.

Academic–Industrial Relationships

Academic–Industrial Relationships

Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research: Policies, Processes, and Attitudes

Few studies have examined academic researchers' understandings of or attitudes toward conflict of interest policies even though these understandings and attitudes represent a crucial component of both compliance and educational efforts. This study reports the results of a large-scale, cross-sectional survey of research faculty at the nine campuses of the University of California regarding their understandings of and attitudes toward campus conflict of interest policies. We gathered information on their general assessments of investigators with financial ties to industry sponsors and reactions to the process of implementing conflict of interest policies at their respective campuses. We surveyed 1,971 faculty members from the nine-campus University of California system and had 779 responses (39% response rate). The sampled faculty were in the ten departments with the most number of financial disclosures at each campus. We utilized the WebSurveyor software to create a secure, online, 21-item survey. Our study reveals faculty with complex, sometimes contradictory, feelings about academic-industry relationships and highlights perceived gaps in policy and process. Most respondents were concerned about unlimited financial relationships, but a sizable number also viewed campus policies as irrelevant. Some expressed considerable anger over the process of policy implementation, rejecting the policies on the basis of professional and individual self-determination and moral integrity. Our study suggests the need for renewed efforts to encourage awareness of the relevance of conflict of interest policies for all faculty, new efforts to increase understanding of the situational nature of conflicts of interest, and a reexamination of the processes of policy implementation at the campus level.

Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences.

This Health Policy Report reviews the history of the relationships between academic institutions and industrial organizations in the United States and discusses recent developments in this area. Academic–industrial relationships have fostered the development and dissemination of valuable medical advances, but they have also resulted in financial conflicts of interest that have threatened both the welfare of subjects enrolled in clinical research trials and the integrity of the research process. The author outlines strategies for managing academic–industrial relationships so as to safeguard both human subjects and the integrity of research.

Academic-industrial relationships: opportunities and pitfalls.

Over the past 50 years, academic-industrial collaborations and technology transfer have played an increasingly prominent role in the biomedical sciences. These relationships can speed the delivery of innovative drugs and medical technologies to clinical practice, creating important public health benefits as well as income for universities and their faculty. At the same time, they raise ethical concerns, particularly when research involves human subjects in clinical trials. Lapses in oversight of industry sponsored clinical trials at universities, and especially patient deaths in a number of trials, have brought these issues into the public spotlight and have led the federal government to intensify its oversight of clinical research. The leadership of Harvard Medical School convened a group of leaders in academic medicine to formulate guidelines on individual financial conflicts of interest. They and other groups are working to formulate a national consensus on this issue.

Academic Industry Relationships in Biotechnology: A Primer on Policy and Practice

Academic industry relationships (AIRs) in biotechnology are part of the modern life science economy. They cannot and should not be prevented. But their benefits should not be exaggerated, nor their risks minimized or ignored. It is essential that these relationships be understood, monitored, and managed in a manner that protects the investments and the integrity of involved individuals, institutions, and science in general. Failure to do so could result in loss of public confidence and support for research enterprise--a priceless resource whose integrity and independence are critical to the future of the scientific endeavor.

Academic-Industrial Relationships

Academic-Industrial Relationships

Ethics issues in academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: the continuing debate.

The author reviews in detail the status of academic-industry relationships (AIRs) in the life sciences from both ethical and empirical perspectives, and identifies ethical issues that have been resolved and those that must still be debated. He summarizes by stating that ethical reasoning militates against the involvement of scientists and universities in those AIRs in which a financial conflict of interest on the part of life science investigators may affect the welfare of human subjects and trainees. Even in other types of AIRs, conflicts of interest have effects on professional decision making that could damage the integrity and productivity of life sciences research, especially scientists' withholding of data and their redirecting of research in more commercial directions. These effects could also help undermine public trust in and support of university researchers. Balanced against these worrisome effects are the benefits of AIRs in increasing some investigators' creativity and productivity, in encouraging technology transfer, and thus in promoting economic growth and public health. He concludes that more research is needed on the harms and benefits of AIRs, especially the development of better data on the effects of withholding data, and also on the economic and health benefits of AIRs and public attitudes toward issues of scientific research that involve possible conflicts of interest. More information on these questions would allow policymakers to make more realistic estimates of the gains and losses associated with AIRs. In the meantime, current information suggests that in general the conflicts of interest created by AIRs are real, consequential, but tolerable if managed carefully. Until more is known about the effects of AIRs, it is prudent for universities and faculty to participate at modest levels in such relationships and to monitor them carefully. This article is one of three in this issue of Academic Medicine that deal with issues of conflict of interest in university-industry research relationships. These articles are discussed in an overview that precedes them.

Academic-Industry Relationships in the Life Sciences

Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences remain controversial. The available evidence suggests that such relationships have both benefits and risks for involved parties. Benefits include additional support of academic research, income for academic health centers, the potential for increased scientific and commercial productivity in both industries and universities, and enhancement of the educational experiences of students and fellows. Risks include an increase in secrecy in academic environments and damage to public support for the life science enterprise. The balance of known benefits and risks suggests that academic-industry relationships should be permitted and even selectively promoted. However, there is also a need for enhanced vigilance on the part of academic institutions and government to reduce risks posed by certain types of arrangements, especially those involving human subjects. Enhanced vigilance should include disclosure of all academic-industry relationships by life science faculty.

Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences. Extent, consequences, and management

Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences. Extent, consequences, and management

Academic-industrial relationships.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the delivery system for medical care is changing much faster than anticipated. Technology is the agent in this process and economics is both the driving and the limiting force: driving because it is the impetus to change the sites of medical practice, limiting because of the constrained number of dollars to allocate to technology acquisition and operation. As we move into the future, it cannot be emphasized too strongly that hospitals and industry should be complementary in this process. To do so successfully requires an understanding of the mission each seeks to pursue and of what each can do for the other.