Industry-funded Research Research Articles

Commercial determinants of health and cancer prevention in South Africa

Aim Commercial determinants, encompassing marketing strategies, corporate social responsibility, and lobbying, significantly contribute to avoidable cancer deaths globally. In South Africa, 30-50% of cancers are preventable, but SA focuses mainly on tobacco control, ignoring major causes of cancer such as alcohol, obesity, and ultra-processed foods. This paper highlights the role of these commercial determinants in contributing to cancer in SA. It outlines strategies and barriers in addressing these determinants. Approach While conventional approaches focus on individual responsibility relating to risk factors like tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy diets, the role of industries in promoting these risk factors remains inadequately addressed. The paper explores the marketing and non-marketing methods employed by industries, such as tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed products, to maximise profits while neglecting public health consequences. Findings The article sheds light on industry tactics, including strategic partnerships, sponsorship, and diversionary narratives during crises, aimed at safeguarding profits. It emphasises the less-explored realm of non-marketing strategies, such as political lobbying, industry-funded research, and the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon where industry insiders become policymakers. Conclusions The article advocates for a paradigm shift in cancer prevention policies, urging the government to implement a comprehensive suite of measures that include increased taxation on harmful products, strict restrictions on marketing, enhanced product labelling, and eliminating conflict of interest in health research and policies. Addressing the commercial determinants necessitates not only recognising their impact but also adopting a multi-level governance approach that prioritises public health over corporate profits. The paper concludes by emphasising the urgency of recognising the links between alcohol, food regulation, and cancer prevention. The overarching goal is to shift power relations, fostering governance for the collective good and ensuring equitable access to preventive measures, especially for vulnerable populations.

Commercial Tobacco and Nicotine Industry-Funded Research Has No Place in SRNT and Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Commercial Tobacco and Nicotine Industry-Funded Research Has No Place in SRNT and Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Abstract PO5-26-11: The Breast Cancer Research Foundation Drug Research Collaborative – A unique and innovative model for industry-funded, academically driven research to advance the field of breast cancer

Abstract The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF) is committed to preventing and curing breast cancer through groundbreaking research. In pursuit of this mission, the BCRF launched the Drug Research Collaborative (DRC) in 2016—a pioneering program designed to bridge the gap between academic investigators and access to investigational therapies, thereby fostering greater academic-driven research in breast cancer. The DRC's primary objective is to fund independent, innovative, and high-quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) and pre-clinical/translational research projects. In conventional drug development, industry-sponsored registration trials play a crucial role, leaving limited resources and scope for exploratory and translational IITs that fall outside the industry's drug approval strategy. Additionally, industry-funded IIT research faces challenges such as reputational risks, perceived influence during internal review processes, intellectual property (IP) concerns, and logistics/program management burdens. The BCRF-DRC program addresses these challenges by issuing requests for proposals to generate creative and unbiased ideas, which are then vetted through an academic review process involving leading breast cancer experts. The most promising research projects are selected for further advancement. The BCRF-DRC program is facilitated by the BCRF research staff, providing project management, while the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC), founded by the BCRF and also supported by Susan G. Komen, supports the clinical trial aspects of the program. Since its inception, the BCRF-DRC has expanded from one to three industry partners, securing a total funding of $25 million for 15 projects, including seven clinical trials and eight pre-clinical projects. This abstract reports on the ongoing progress and outcomes achieved by these three programs. The BCRF-DRC represents a revolutionary paradigm in research funding and collaboration by harnessing the collective power of industry partners, philanthropic organizations, and academic institutions. Through this collaborative effort, the BCRF-DRC provides a unique platform for researchers to accelerate the translation of scientific discoveries into effective clinical interventions, thus making significant strides in the field of breast cancer in the coming decades. By empowering academic investigators, fostering unbiased research, and addressing the limitations of industry-funded IITs, the BCRF-DRC is revolutionizing breast cancer research and driving the development of novel interventions. This abstract highlights the transformative potential of the BCRF-DRC program and its contribution to advancing breast cancer treatments and ultimately improving patient outcomes. The success of this collaborative model serves as a testament to the power of multi-sector partnerships and the pivotal role they play in shaping the future of breast cancer research. Citation Format: Unnati Jariwala, Dorraya El-Ashry, Judy Garber, Larry Norton. The Breast Cancer Research Foundation Drug Research Collaborative – A unique and innovative model for industry-funded, academically driven research to advance the field of breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-26-11.

Industry Sponsorship in Dentistry: An Ethics Scoping Review

Evidence to guide dentistry on conflict of interest (COI) and professional-industry relationships is limited. To determine the breadth of literature regarding ethics in dentistry and COI relating to sponsorship. A scoping review following the PRISMA extension was performed. Medline/PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were used to identify peer-reviewed sources, published 2013-2023. Titles, abstracts, and full-text reviews were conducted by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The remaining studies underwent critical appraisal. Key findings were extracted and analyzed. Adjusted for critical appraisal thresholds, we evaluated a total of (n=9) studies associated with dentistry, COI, and sponsorship (industry and non-profit research funding). The majority of evidence demonstrated a significant correlation with disclosure of COI and professional ethical conflict. More than 32% of publications demonstrated no clear disclosure or failed to report COI. Sponsored studies demonstrated significantly greater scrutiny of disclosure practices, whereas industry/dentist-reported payments were prevalent but varied widely (19% to 62%). Regardless of funding or influence, dental professionals are likely to disclose industry conflicts when presented with policies to guide transparency, thus strengthening patient trust and professional code of ethics.

Academic accounting and interdisciplinary research – Australian evidence

PurposeGiven the importance of interdisciplinary research in addressing wicked problems, this paper aims to explore the development of and prospects for interdisciplinary research through evidence gained from academic accountants in Australia.Design/methodology/approachExtant literature is complemented with interviews of accounting academics in Australia to reveal the challenges and opportunities facing interdisciplinary researchers and reimagine prospects for the future.FindingsEvidence indicates that accounting academics hold diverse views toward interdisciplinarity. There is also confusion between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the journals in which academic accountants publish. Further, there is mixed messaging among Deans, disciplinary leaders and emerging scholars about the importance of interdisciplinary research to, on the one hand, publish track records and, on the other, secure grants from government and industry. Finally, there are differing perceptions about the disciplines to be encouraged or accepted in the cross-fertilisation of ideas.Originality/valueThis paper is novel in gathering first-hand data about the opportunities, challenges and tensions accounting academics face in collaborating with others in interdisciplinary research. It confirms a discouraging pressure for emerging scholars between the academic research outputs required to publish in journals, prepare reports for industry and secure research funding, with little guidance for how these tensions might be managed.

Plastic Surgery Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Characteristics, Research Themes, and Predictors of Publication and Discontinuation

Summary: Clinical trials (CTs) are crucial for evidence-based surgical care. Despite growing interest in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) research, the status of PRS CTs remains unknown. We obtained PRS CTs from ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (November 2022). Topic modeling identified research themes and machine learning models generated CT-publication pairs. Kaplan-Meier curves visualized CT discontinuation and nonpublication. Of the 4685 PRS CTs identified, 79% were interventional and 81% recruited adults. Most were single-center-led (67%) and academic-funded (77%). Male investigators led 77% of CTs. Female-only patient CTs outnumbered male-only (31% versus 1%). The United States led with 41% of CTs, followed by France, Canada, and China. Industry-funded CTs were higher in the USA, Germany, and Belgium, and academic-funded in France, Canada, and China. PRS CTs clustered into aesthetics (43%), reconstructive (20%), wound healing (8%), peripheral nerve (6%), tumor excision (5%), craniofacial (5%), perioperative pain (5%), and burns (4%). Industry preferred funding aesthetics, whereas academia and industry co-funded wound healing. Publication rates of completed (24%) and terminated (10%) CTs varied by cluster, with perioperative pain CTs exhibiting higher rates. Industry-funded CTs had lower publication rates (hazard ratio: 0.64, 95% confidence interval: 0.5–0.81) and higher discontinuation (hazard ratio: 1.34, confidence interval: 1.06–1.68) driven by sponsors’ decision to terminate prematurely. Global growth in PRS trialome reflects rising interest in evidence-based plastic surgery. Yet, imbalances in participant age, geography, funding source, and trial design influence likelihood of CT discontinuation and publication. Key research gaps include pediatric CTs, accountability in industry-funded research, and multicenter collaborations with underrepresented regions.

Is Industry- Versus Government-Sponsored Research a Zero-Sum Game?

Is Industry- Versus Government-Sponsored Research a Zero-Sum Game?

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research.

Pro: Nearly all new devices and drugs come from industry that provides two-thirds of the funding for medical research, and a much higher fraction of clinical research. Realistically, without corporate-funded studies, perioperative research would stagnate with little innovation and few new products. Opinions are ubiquitous and normal, but do not constitute epidemiologic bias. Competent clinical research includes many protections against selection and measurement bias, and the publication process provides at least moderate protection against misinterpretation of results. Trial registries largely prevent selective data presentation. Sponsored trials are particularly protected against inappropriate corporate influence because they are usually codesigned with the US Food and Drug Administration, and analyses are based on formal predefined statistical plans, as well as being conducted with rigorous external monitoring. Novel products, which are essential for advances in clinical care, largely come from industry, and industry appropriately funds much of the required research. We should celebrate industry's contribution to improvements in clinical care. Con: While industry funding contributes to research and discovery, examples of industry-funded research demonstrate bias. In the setting of financial pressures and potential conflict of interest, bias can influence the type of study design, hypotheses being tested, rigor and transparency in data analysis, interpretation, as well as reporting of the results. Unlike public granting agencies, industry does not necessarily provide funding based on unbiased peer review following an open call for proposals. The focus on success can influence the choice of a comparator, which might not be ideal among the possible alternatives, the language used in the publication, and even the ability to publish. Unpublished negative trials can result in selected information being withheld from the scientific community and the public. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that research addresses the most important and relevant questions, that results are available even when they do not support the use of a product produced by the funding company, that populations studied reflect the relevant patients, that the most rigorous approaches are applied, that studies have the appropriate power to address the question posed, and that conclusions are presented in an unbiased manner.

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research

ProNearly all new devices and drugs come from industry that provides two-thirds of the funding for medical research, and a much higher fraction of clinical research. Realistically, without corporate-funded studies, perioperative research would stagnate with little innovation and few new products. Opinions are ubiquitous and normal but do not constitute epidemiologic bias. Competent clinical research includes many protections against selection and measurement bias, and the publication process provides at least moderate protection against misinterpretation of results. Trial registries largely prevent selective data presentation. Sponsored trials are particularly protected against inappropriate corporate influence because they are usually codesigned with the US Food and Drug Administration, and analyses are based on formal predefined statistical plans, as well as being conducted with rigorous external monitoring. Novel products, which are essential for advances in clinical care, largely come from industry, and industry appropriately funds much of the required research. We should celebrate industry’s contribution to improvements in clinical care. ConWhile industry funding contributes to research and discovery, examples of industry-funded research demonstrate bias. In the setting of financial pressures and potential conflict of interest, bias can influence the type of study design, hypotheses being tested, rigor and transparency in data analysis, interpretation, as well as reporting of the results. Unlike public granting agencies, industry does not necessarily provide funding based on unbiased peer review following an open call for proposals. The focus on success can influence the choice of a comparator, which might not be ideal among the possible alternatives, the language used in the publication, and even the ability to publish. Unpublished negative trials can result in selected information being withheld from the scientific community and the public. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that research addresses the most important and relevant questions, that results are available even when they do not support the use of a product produced by the funding company, that populations studied reflect the relevant patients, that the most rigorous approaches are applied, that studies have the appropriate power to address the question posed, and that conclusions are presented in an unbiased manner.

Social Media Influence and Gender Are Correlated with Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Sports Surgeons.

Social media, specifically Twitter, has become an increasingly used tool in academic orthopaedic surgery to help surgeons connect with patients and peers. This study seeks to understand correlations among social medial influence, academic influence, and gender among academic orthopaedic sport surgeons. A list of all orthopaedic sports surgeons serving as faculty of sports fellowships in the United States was compiled, along with publicly available demographic information. Their Hirsh indices (h-indices) were obtained using the Scopus database. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act Web site was used to determine their industry payments from 2014 through 2020. The number of Twitter followers was used as a measure of social media influence. Multivariable linear regression models were employed to explore the associations between these parameters and industry payments. Of the 633 surgeons, 33% had a Twitter account. Surgeons with > 1,000 followers (7.3%) were awarded 186% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.01) and had a higher probability of receiving industry research funding compared with those with no followers (p = 0.03). Sports surgeons had an average h-index of 16, with 44% having ≤ 20 publications and 21% having ≥ 100 publications. Surgeons with ≥ 100 publications were awarded 453% more in nonresearch funding (p = 0.001) and had a 32% higher probability of receiving industry research funding (p < 0.001) when compared with their colleagues with ≤ 20 publications. Female sports surgeons accounted for only 7.9% of surgeons included in the study, and were awarded 65% less in industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues (p = 0.004) when controlling for other factors. Both number of publications and a high level of Twitter activity (> 1,000 followers) had the strongest associations with the quantity of industry nonresearch funding and the highest probability of industry research funding. Female sports surgeons received significantly less industry nonresearch funding compared with their male colleagues. Future studies further exploring gender disparities in industry funding for orthopaedic surgeons may be warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level III.

Gender disparities in industry compensation and research payments among neurointerventional surgeons in the USA

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to examine the presence of gender disparity represented by industry payments and research funding within the field of interventional neuroradiology.MethodsPayment information was collected using...

Commentary on McCambridge et al.: When the emperor has no clothes (butpretends to be a fashion expert).

Commentary on McCambridge et al.: When the emperor has no clothes (butpretends to be a fashion expert).

Not all that shines is Diamond: why Open Access publication favours rich authors, prestigious universities and industry-funded research

More and more researchers pay processing costs for publishing in Open Access, but these costs disadvantage authors who are female, early in their career, or from low-income countries.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P<.05). A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation=$21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation=$224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38±22 vs. 22.64±22.7, P=.02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97±127.2 vs. 100.3±122.3, P=.03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

Trends and Characteristics of Industry Payments for Ophthalmology Research From 2014 to 2020

Characterizing industry-ophthalmology collaborations in research can highlight current areas of focus, improve transparency, and identify potential sources for conflicts of interest. To assess the trends and characteristics in research payments reported from industry to ophthalmologists from 2014 to 2020. This cross-sectional study used data from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments database (OPD), which contains public records of payments between industry and physicians, to identify all ophthalmologists who received industry payments for research purposes between 2014 and 2020. Industry funding was compared with public research funding by the National Eye Institute. The value and distribution of payments, sponsoring manufacturers, and research products were assessed. Changes in aggregate and per individual-level funding were characterized using formal trend analysis. From 2014 to 2020, 2102 ophthalmologists were reported to have received $825 417 233 in industry research payments. Industry funding increased 203% from $62 924 525 in 2014 to $190 714 508 in 2020 (P = .01). Comparatively, total National Eye Institute research funding during the same period was $5 003 407 764 and increased 6.6% from $701 313 262 in 2014 to $747 929 556 in 2020 (P = .04). The share of all medical research funding from industry directed specifically toward ophthalmology research increased from 1.2% in 2014 to 3.2% in 2020 (P = .04). The distribution of industry payments was skewed, with the top 15 of 108 manufacturers accounting for 93.9% of funding. The top 10% of ophthalmologists (210) were reported to have received 65.7% of all research dollars ($542 299 121). The highest funded research products were anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma treatments, and intraocular lenses. Although unequal in distribution, industry-funded research in ophthalmology is extensive and increasing in scope. Industry funding for research is less than that of public funding; however, industry funding increased faster between 2014 and 2020. Results of this study highlight the increasing importance of industry funding in ophthalmology research, but it may also present ethical challenges for clinicians collaborating with industry.

An Updated Framework for Industry Funding of Food and Nutrition Research: Managing Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity

ABSTRACTAlthough the food and beverage industry plays a critical role in advancing food and nutrition science, industry-funded research is subject to intense scrutiny as a result of various perceived and real biases related to funding sources. To address this, the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS) Assembly on Scientific Integrity has updated its Guiding Principles for Funding Food Science and Nutrition Research to provide a modernized framework for minimizing bias and promoting integrity in industry-funded research. Existing best practices for managing conflicts and maintaining trust in science, as well as coverage related to conflicts in industry-funded research, were reviewed to inform the development of the updated Guiding Principles. The updated Guiding Principles continue to provide conflict-of-interest guidelines to protect the integrity and credibility of the scientific record. These updates provide clarification, strengthen the guardrails that separate the funding from the science, and reflect the shift within the scientific community toward increased transparency and open science. If the principles are followed as intended, there should be little reason to dispute the results of industry-funded studies, other than to debate the science itself. This article issues a challenge to the research community to strive for just that.

Reducing corporate influence on university research in America

The reduction in funding that many American universities are experiencing has led to concerns that these institutions will rely more on corporations to provide funding for research. Unfortunately, industry-funded research can have a corrupting effect on science. Since universities are generally thought of as institutions that advance science, some of their representatives have an interest in reducing the misleading research funded by corporations. In this paper, I include a vignette that shows how the quantitative research that many corporations fund can lead to deceptive results. I also provide examples of cases involving harmful practices that occurred at universities. Finally, I offer strategies that would likely reduce the misleading research funded by corporations.

Industry-funded research and bias in food science

Industry-funded research and bias in food science

Pediatric Hospital Medicine Needs More Randomized Controlled Trials.

Pediatric Hospital Medicine Needs More Randomized Controlled Trials.

Confronting potential food industry \u2018front groups\u2019: case study of the international food information Council\u2019s nutrition communications using the UCSF food industry documents archive

BackgroundThere are growing concerns that the public’s trust in science is eroding, including concerns that vested interests are corrupting what we know about our food. We know the food industry funds third-party ‘front groups’ to advance its positions and profits. Here we ask whether this is the case with International Food Information Council (IFIC) and its associated Foundation, exploring its motivations and the potential for industry influence on communications around nutritional science.MethodWe systematically searched the University of California San Francisco’s Food Industry Documents Archive, for all documents pertaining to IFIC, which were then thematically evaluated against a science-communication influence model.ResultsWe identified 75 documents which evidence that prominent individuals with long careers in the food industry view IFIC as designed to: 1) advance industry public relations goals; 2) amplify the messages of industry-funded research organizations; and 3) place industry approved experts before the press and media, in ways that conceal industry input. We observed that there were in some cases efforts made to conceal and dilute industry links associated with IFIC from the public’s view.DiscussionInstances suggesting IFIC communicates content produced by industry, and other industry-funded organisations like ILSI, give rise to concerns about vested interests going undetected in its outputs. IFIC’s deployment to take on so-called “hard-hitting issues” for industry, summating evidence, while countering evidence that industry opposes, give rise to concerns about IFIC’s purported neutrality. IFIC’s role in coordinating and placing industry allies in online and traditional press outlets, to overcome industry’s global scientific, legislative, regulatory and public relations challenges, leads also to concerns about it thwarting effective public health and safety measures.ConclusionsIFIC’s promotion of evidence for the food industry should be interpreted as marketing strategy for those funders. Effective science communication may be obfuscated by undeclared conflicts of interests.