Academic-Industrial Relationships

Most of the attention to the problem of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) in psychiatry has centered on the actions of individuals. But what if the problem is much larger, and has infected entire organizations? Using the conceptual, and normative framework of “institutional corruption,” we describe how organized psychiatry has developed values, norms, and practices that have undermined its public health mission. Specifically, we argue that institutionalized FCOI have distorted the evidence base upon which psychiatric research, diagnosis, and treatment depends. We argue that current strategies such as simple transparency of commercial ties and “managing” FCOI are insufficient and vulnerable to gamesmanship. Following the IOM’s most recent (2011) recommendations for preventing bias when there are academic–industry relationships, we offer ideas for responding to the ethical and intellectual crisis in psychiatry, and emphasize the importance of training practitioners to think critically when assessing the evidence base of industry-sponsored research.

Academic industry relationships (AIRs) in biotechnology are part of the modern life science economy. They cannot and should not be prevented. But their benefits should not be exaggerated, nor their risks minimized or ignored. It is essential that these relationships be understood, monitored, and managed in a manner that protects the investments and the integrity of involved individuals, institutions, and science in general. Failure to do so could result in loss of public confidence and support for research enterprise--a priceless resource whose integrity and independence are critical to the future of the scientific endeavor.

“Hyperscrutiny” of Academic-Industrial Relationships: Potential for Unintended Consequences—A Response

Technology is evolvingat breakneck pace, changing the way we communicate,travel, find out information, and live our lives. Yet chemistry asa science has been slower to adapt to this rapidly shifting world.In this Outlook we use highlights from recent literature reports todescribe how progresses in enabling technologies are altering thistrend, permitting chemists to incorporate new advances into theirwork at all levels of the chemistry development cycle. We discussthe benefits and challenges that have arisen, impacts on academic–industryrelationships, and future trends in the area of chemical synthesis.

The purpose of this study was to explore qualitatively the nature, consequences and management of institutional academic industry relationships (IAIRs) in the life and health sciences. The results of our interviews suggest that in the institutions we visited IAIRs are common and deeply embedded in the academic enterprise both among institutional officials and the organization itself. Many believe these relationships have potential benefits for the research and education mission while creating the potential for conflicts of interest. Further tracking and study of IAIRs is required to understand and anticipate the full effects of these relationships on the scientific enterprise in the United States.