ACADEMIC researchers backed by biomedical companies are much more likely to produce pro-industry findings than are independent groups, according to the most comprehensive study yet of the impact of funding sources on clinical research.
Academics鈥� increasing reliance on support from industry has prompted growing disquiet, with a British poll published this week by the Social Research Institute at the University of East Anglia suggesting that 60 per cent of the public believes this threatens scientific independence.
Those concerns may be well-founded, according to Cary Gross and his team at the Yale University School of Medicine, who have reviewed all English-language studies of links between funding sources and medical research outcomes since 1980. Their analysis, covering more than 1100 clinical trials and other studies, reveals that where academics got backing from industry, 80 per cent reached pro-industry conclusions, compared with just 53 per cent of studies carried out by researchers without such links. Some areas were more biased. Of 47 industry-backed studies and reviews of calcium channel blockers for heart disease, over half had favourable conclusions, in contrast to none by independent academics.
Advertisement
Gross鈥檚 team concede that one explanation could be that industry is simply more likely to back winners. They point out, however, that industry-backed studies are much more likely to compare drugs with placebos or poorly chosen drugs rather than the best competitor, boosting the chances of getting positive results.
Reporting their findings in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (vol 289, p 454), the team point out that in the US, the proportion of biomedical R&D backed by industry has almost doubled since 1980 to 62 per cent, and almost two-thirds of academic institutions have equity in the new biomed companies backing research on campus. 鈥淔inancial relationships are pervasive and problematic,鈥� they conclude.
Richard Ley of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rejects any suggestion that industry funding is leading academics to put a positive spin on their research findings. 鈥淲e are a long-term industry and there is no room for anything other than the best possible science,鈥� he says. Ley adds that regulatory bodies review all the evidence, both sponsored and independent, before approving any new treatment.