We like to think academic researchers are
motivated purely by the desire to make progress in the fields of science and
medicine. But a new
report published Tuesday finds that as many as 1 in 10 board
positions at for-profit health care companies are held by researchers
affiliated with a nonprofit or academic institution. While there aren’t any
national guidelines set up to prevent these relationships, researchers and
other experts say the overlap amounts to a huge conflict of interest and has
the potential to influence academic work.
An investigation conducted by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh
School of Medicine found that academics serving on boards for companies were
compensated an average of $193,000 in 2013, and also held equity. In total, the
279 board members affiliated with an academic institution received more than
$54 million, and also owned 59 million shares of company stocks.
The investigation found that 180 of the companies (41 percent) had at least
one board member who held a high-level post at an academic institution. These
board members worked as full-time professors, trustees, chief executive
officers, vice presidents, presidents, provosts, chancellors and deans from a
total of 85 nonprofit and academic medical institutions in the U.S.
Under current guidelines laid out by the U.S. Physician
Sunshine Act—passed as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010—all pharmaceutical and
medical device companies are required to report any payments made to physicians
and academic medical centers, including funding for research, travel,
honorariums, speaking fees, meals and educational items. However, companies
aren’t required to report money that is paid to a board of directors.
"As our analysis shows, many academic leaders and professors in
medicine may have significant industry relationships not captured by the
Sunshine Act," Dr. Anderson, lead author of the analysis, said in a press
statement. "Often when we talk about conflicts of interest in medicine, we
are talking about physicians receiving pens and meals from sales
representatives. The stakes are much higher for the board members in our
study."
Many experts in the medical and science
fields question the ethics of any large financial transactions between
academics and big businesses that could potentially influence the direction of
research and public health, including much-needed funding for research. The
beverage industry has recently come under fire for funding scientific research
that argues drinking soda isn’t
bad for you. And earlier in September, BMJ reported that a number
of committee members tasked
with drawing up new U.S. dietary guidelines had received large sums of money
from food and health companies.
“[Integrity] must take precedence over individuals' compensation,” David
Rothman, professor at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons,
said in a press statement. He warns that these high-paying board
positions may go beyond consulting and collaboration to something more
insidious.
The investigation was conducted by reviewing public disclosure statements
of all publicly traded U.S. health care companies listed on the NASDAQ and New
York Stock Exchange as of January 2014. The companies—442 in all—specialized in
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical equipment and health care services.
( Jessica Firger, newsweek.com, 9/30/2015 )
Just The Way You Are
divine-music.info
12 Reasons Research Goes Wrong
Bad Math
