This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Drs Gelijns and Thier¹ argue that the relationship between university and industry should be reconsidered by "balancing risks against benefits" and then, in an apparent contradiction, urge university and industry "to maximize the upsides of collaboration and minimize the downsides," a premise they adopt by disregarding several substantive conflicts of interest. For example, the past decade has seen a growing number of university presidents and medical leaders who accept appointments to health-related corporate boards of directors, thus assuming fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of their stockholders. This role is in direct conflict with student and patient welfare and the overall mission of the university, not to mention the message it sends to faculty, researchers, and physicians. Angell² asks, "How can they [academic medical institutions] justify rigorous conflict-of-interest policies for individual researchers when their own ties are so extensive?" She also warns, "The incentives of the market-place should not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Medical Innovation and Institutional Interdependence: Rethinking University-Industry Connections
Annetine C. Gelijns and Samuel O. Thier
JAMA. 2002;287(1):72-77.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Conflict of Interest and the Public Trust
Catherine D. DeAngelis
JAMA. 2000;284(17):2237-2238.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT