This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Academic Medical Centers  • Conflict of Interest  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  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.

In Reply: We agree with Dr Egilman and Mr Ehrle that many trustees, presidents, chancellors, provosts, deans, and department chairpersons—all examples of persons whom we have termed "institutional decision makers"—have developed extensive ties with industry. They misinterpret our recommendations, however, as to "manage" rather than to "eliminate" the financial conflicts of interest of institutional decision makers. For instance, we distinguished the research-related financial interests of institutional review board members and institutional decision makers from those of the institution itself. We believe that while there are legitimate justifications for permitting institutions to derive certain income from research (such as through licensing agreements with industry), no legitimate justifications exist for allowing review board members or institutional decision makers to possess significant financial interests in the research they are responsible for overseeing.

Regarding institutional decision makers, we specifically recommended that "policies on institutional conflicts of interest . . . should require institutional decision . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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

RELATED ARTICLE

Handling Conflicts of Interest Between Industry and Academia
David S. Egilman and Lynn H. Ehrle
JAMA. 2003;289(24):3240.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT