Guest guest Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - From 1994 to 2003, medical research funded by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies steadily increased and now surpasses research funded by government or public sources, according to a review of the most frequently cited studies. These findings raise concerns that " academics may be losing control of the clinical research agenda, " senior author Dr. P. A. Ioannidis, from the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, and colleagues note. However, " government and the public sector still make major contributions to academic research, despite the rapid increase in industry sponsorship in areas such as randomized controlled trials. " In the new study, reported in the March 17th online issue of the British Medical Journal, the sponsorship of 289 articles, identified through a Web of Knowledge database, was determined. Seventy-six percent of the studies featured at least one author with a university affiliation, while 57% featured at least one with a hospital affiliation. Both of these proportions were fairly stable throughout the study period. Overall, 60% of articles had government or public funding and 36% were funded by industry. However, this masks the dramatic rise in industry funding that occurred over time: in 1994, roughly 30% of articles were funded by industry compared with over 50% in 2001. Moreover, 65 of the 77 most cited randomized controlled trials involved industry funding. " Medical research should reflect public needs more closely and the efforts of all of those involved should be better coordinated, " the authors emphasize. In a related commentary, Dr. n Delaney, from the University of Birmingham in the UK, notes that " a decline in public funding for high quality research is worrying and would ultimately harm patients. However, recent funding announcements in the UK indicate that government recognizes this threat, and some correction of the balance should take place in the coming decade. " BMJ 2006. http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2006/03/17/professional/links/20060317prof0\ 01.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.