Code of conduct for industry cash: FASEB

A growing number of researchers in academia are receiving private funds for conducting research, and scientists who accept industry money need to follow a set of rules -- 19, to be precise -- for handling ethical issues, according to the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB).The recommendations include avoiding companies that ask scientists to postpone publication of research results, and having trusted peers review the relationship. "The vast majority of researchers really are guided by the highest ethical and professional motives," said FASEB President Leo T. Furcht at a meeting with reporters last week (July 14). "Our scientists and physician-scientists want to do the right thing, if they know what the right thing is."Over the past decade the percentage of industry support of academic research through contracts and grants, consulting, and licensing arrangements has grown significantly compared to public funding. About one-fourth of academic faculty members receive research funding from industry, totaling nearly $2 billion in 2004, the FASEB report states. Among FASEB's "over-arching principles and voluntary standards:" - Investigators shall not enter into agreements with companies that prevent or delay publication of research results by more than 60 days. - Industry relationships with scientists shall be peer-reviewed by fellow academics at the same institution. - A mentor's outside commercial interests shall not impede his or her trainees' careers. - All significant financial interests in research involving human subjects shall be regarded as "potentially problematic" and require "close scrutiny."Furcht, also a professor of cancer biology and head of the department of laboratory medicine and pathology at the University of Minnesota, noted that the recommendations may sound straightforward. "But you would be surprised at the times many of these issues are not attended to."The research world has been rocked in recent years by a series of well-publicized reports of impropriety by some top scientists at the National Institutes of Health, allegations of manipulation of clinical trials data by major pharmaceutical companies, and fabrication of stem cell data. Numerous rules already have been established for NIH intramural researchers, at research institutions, and at scientific journals. But these tend to focus on the responsibilities of the institutions to review and oversee investigators' relationships with industry, the report says, with less emphasis on the actions of individual scientists.FASEB plans to disseminate the recommendations to the 84,000 member scientists of its 22-member research societies, and to work with other organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), to develop and refine standard guidelines for researchers nationwide.FASEB has also received a $112,000 grant from the Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to conduct educational programs at universities and to help develop institutional guidelines for areas such as financial disclosure, said Laura Brockway, FASEB senior policy analyst and principal investigator on the award."It's really good that an organization that represents faculty researchers is tackling these issues," said David Korn, AAMC senior vice president. "After all, faculty researchers are the people making the discoveries and they are the people the private sector is really interested in working with," he told The Scientist. "I'm not sure there is anything novel here that hasn't been said before," countered Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Bioethics at NIH's Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center. "It doesn't break new ground and is not vigorous on old ground." Nevertheless, "a lot of previous attention has focused on clinical researchers and here the focus is on basic researchers. That's a valuable point," he told The Scientist.Ted Agres tagres@the-scientist.comLinks within this article:"Shared Responsibility, Individual Integrity: Scientists Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research," FASEB, July 14, 2006. opa.faseb.org/pdf/FASEB_COI_paper.pdfN. Stafford, "Public concern for private funding," The Scientist, July 1, 2006. www.the-scientist.com/2006/7/1/70/1/T Agres, "Research funding doubles in decade," The Scientist, September 22, 2005. www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22776/T Agres, "NIH needs 'drastic changes,'" The Scientist, June 23, 2004. www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22245/R Gallagher and I Oransky, "Who's minding the drug store?" The Scientist, January 17, 2005. www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15203/A McCook, "Hwang faked results, says panel," The Scientist, December 23, 2005. www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22870/T Agres, "When the line between science and business blurs," The Scientist, February 28, 2005. www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15290/NIH Conflict of Interest Information www.nih.gov/about/ethics_COI.htm"Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest," Association of American Universities Task Force on research Accountability, October 2001. www.aau.edu/research/COI.01.pdf"Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication," International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Feb. 2006. www.icmje.org/Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center clinicalcenter.nih.gov/index.cgi

Code of conduct for industry cash: FASEB

Group releases voluntary guidelines for biomedical scientists receiving industry support

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of