CONTEXT:Despite federal regulations on faculty conflicts of interest in federally funded research, academic-industry ties are common, and evidence exists that financial considerations bias the research record. Public scrutiny of these ties is increasing, especially in cases where researchers have financial interests in the corporate sponsors of their clinical research. OBJECTIVE:To review policies on conflict of interest at major biomedical research institutions in the United States. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey and content analysis study conducted from August 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 conflicts of interest and specified management strategies or limitations, according to the institutions' faculty/staff conflict of interest policies. RESULTS:Content of the conflict of interest policies varied widely across institutions. Fifty-five percent of policies (n = 49) required disclosures from all faculty while 45% (n = 40) required them only from principal investigators or those conducting research. Nineteen percent of policies (n = 17) specified limits on faculty financial interests in corporate sponsors of research, 12% (n = 11) specified limits on permissible delays in publication, and 4% (n = 4) prohibited student involvement in work sponsored by a company in which the faculty mentor had a financial interest. CONCLUSIONS:Most policies on conflict of interest in our sample of major research institutions in the United States lack specificity about the kinds of relationships with industry that are permitted or prohibited. Wide variation in management of conflicts of interest among institutions may cause unnecessary 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. JAMA. 2000;284:2203-2208.

译文

背景:尽管联邦政府对联邦资助的研究中的教师利益冲突有规定,但学术界与学术界之间的联系很普遍,并且有证据表明,出于财务考虑,研究记录存在偏差。公众对这些联系的审查越来越多,特别是在研究人员对其临床研究的公司赞助商有经济利益的情况下。
目的:审查美国主要生物医学研究机构的利益冲突政策。
设计:1998年8月至2000年2月进行的横断面调查和内容分析研究。
地点和参与者:1998年,美国国立卫生研究院资助最多的100家美国机构最初被抽样;已有来自89个机构的政策,该政策已包括在内。
主要观察指标:根据研究机构的教职员工利益冲突政策,披露,审查和管理利益冲突以及指定的管理策略或限制的过程。
结果:利益冲突政策的内容在各个机构之间差异很大。 55%的政策(n = 49)要求所有教职员工公开,而45%(n = 40)的政策仅要求主要研究人员或进行研究的人员公开。 19%的政策(n = 17)规定了公司研究赞助者对教师财务利益的限制,12%(n = 11)规定了允许出版延迟的限制,4%(n = 4)禁止学生参与赞助的工作由教师在其中有财务利益的公司提供。
结论:在我们的美国主要研究机构样本中,大多数关于利益冲突的政策都缺乏关于允许或禁止的与产业的关系的具体性。机构间利益冲突的管理差异很大,可能会导致潜在的行业合作伙伴之间出现不必要的混乱,或者大学之间的企业赞助竞争可能会削弱学术水平。对于利益冲突,制定广泛商定,明确,具体和可信的政策符合机构的长远利益。贾玛2000; 284:2203-2208。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录