 |
|
Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth
Corporate Gifts Supporting Life Sciences Research
Eric G. Campbell, PhD;
Karen Seashore Louis, PhD;
David Blumenthal, MD, MPP
JAMA. 1998;279:995-999.
Context.— Throughout the last decade a number of studies have been conducted to examine academic-industry research relationships. However, to our knowledge, no studies to date have empirically examined academic scientists' experience with research-related gifts from companies.
Objective.— To examine the frequency, importance, and potential implications of research-related gifts from companies to academic life scientists.
Design.— A mailed survey conducted in 1994 and 1995 of 3394 faculty who conduct life science research at the 50 universities that received the most research funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1993.
Setting.— Research-intensive universities.
Participants.— A total of 2167 of the 3394 faculty responded to the survey (response rate, 64%).
Main Outcome Measures.— The percentage of faculty who received a research-related gift from a company in the last 3 years, the perceived importance of gifts to respondents' research, and what, if anything, the recipient thought the donor(s) expected in return for the gift.
Results.— Forty-three percent of respondents received a research-related gift in the last 3 years independent of a grant or contract. The most frequently received gifts were biomaterials (24%), discretionary funds (15%), research equipment and trips to meetings (11% each), support for students (9%), and other research-related gifts (3%). Of those who received a gift, 66% reported the gift was important to their research. More than half of the recipients reported that donors expected the following in return for the gift: acknowledgment in publications (63%), that the gift not be passed on to a third party (60%), and that the gift be used only for the agreed-on purposes (59%). A total of 32% of recipients reported that the donor wanted prepublication review of any articles or reports stemming from the use of the gift, 30% indicated the company expected testing of their products, and 19% indicated that a donor expected ownership of all patentable results from the research in which a gift was used. However, what recipients thought donors expected differed by the type of gift received.
Conclusions.— Research-related gifts are a common and important form of research support for academic life scientists. However, recipients frequently think that donors place restrictions and expect returns that may be problematic for recipients as well as institutions.
From the Health Policy Research and Development Unit, Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Partners Healthcare System, Inc, Boston (Drs Campbell and Blumenthal); the Departments of Medicine (Drs Campbell and Blumenthal) and Health Care Policy (Dr Blumenthal), Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Dr Louis).
RELATED ARTICLE
Disclosure Policies for Gifts From Industry to Academic Faculty
Lisa A. Bero
JAMA. 1998;279(13):1031-1032.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study
Yank et al.
BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists
Claxton
Toxicol Ind Health 2007;23:557-571.
ABSTRACT
Frequency, Type, and Monetary Value of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Cancer Clinical Research
Hampson et al.
JCO 2007;25:3609-3614.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Symposium. Relationships with Industry: Critical for New Technology or an Unnecessary Evil?
Jacobs et al.
JBJS 2006;88:1650-1663.
FULL TEXT
Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity.
Smith
JRSM 2006;99:292-297.
FULL TEXT
Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding on Clinical Research
Lexchin
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2005;39:194-197.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Inside Information: Financial Conflicts of Interest for Research Subjects in Early Phase Clinical Trials
Helft et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:656-661.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research
Zuckerman et al.
JBJS 2004;86:423-428.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Supporting whistleblowers in academic medicine: training and respecting the courage of professional conscience
Faunce et al.
J. Med. Ethics 2004;30:40-43.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is academic psychiatry for sale?
Healy and Thase
Br. J. Psychiatry 2003;182:388-390.
FULL TEXT
Restoring Balance to Industry-Academia Relationships in an Era of Institutional Financial Conflicts of Interest: Promoting Research While Maintaining Trust
Johns et al.
JAMA 2003;289:741-746.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman et al.
JAMA 2003;289:454-465.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence From a National Survey
Campbell et al.
JAMA 2002;287:473-480.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy
Rosenstock and Lee
Am. J. Public Health 2002;92:14-18.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships With Industry: A Case Study
Boyd and Bero
JAMA 2000;284:2209-2214.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Corporate Gifts to Academic Researchers
Hsu et al.
JAMA 1998;280:883-884.
FULL TEXT
Disclosure Policies for Gifts From Industry to Academic Faculty
Bero
JAMA 1998;279:1031-1032.
FULL TEXT
|
