Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Osteoporosis International
Published in: Osteoporosis International 5/2010

01-05-2010 | Position Paper

The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES)

Authors: O. Bruyere, J. A. Kanis, M.-E. Ibar-Abadie, N. Alsayed, M. L. Brandi, N. Burlet, D. L. Cahall, A. Chines, J.-P. Devogelaer, W. Dere, N. Goel, N. Hughes, J.-M. Kaufman, S. Korte, B. H. Mitlak, D. Niese, R. Rizzoli, L. C. Rovati, J.-Y. Reginster

Published in: Osteoporosis International | Issue 5/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Summary

This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry.

Introduction

Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry—a view that is rarely challenged.

Methods

Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed.

Results

Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided.

Conclusions

The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.
Literature
1.
Walsh K, Sandars J (2008) Competing interests and research in medical education. Postgrad Med J 84:113–114CrossRefPubMed
2.
Haines IE, Olver IN (2008) Are self-regulation and declaration of conflict of interest still the benchmark for relationships between physicians and industry? Med J Aust 189:263–266PubMed
3.
Shaldon S (2008) Conflict of interest in clinical guidelines should be avoided. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23:1771, author reply 1772CrossRefPubMed
4.
Elliott KC (2008) Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-of-interest policies. Account Res 15:1–29PubMed
5.
Sismondo S (2008) How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med 66:1909–1914CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
Camilleri M, Cortese DA (2007) Managing conflict of interest in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc 82:607–614CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tungaraza T, Poole R (2007) Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. Br J Psychiatry 191:82–83CrossRefPubMed
10.
Duvall DG (2006) Conflict of interest or ideological divide: the need for ongoing collaboration between physicians and industry. Curr Med Res Opin 22:1807–1812CrossRefPubMed
11.
Weinfurt KP, Friedman JY, Dinan MA, Allsbrook JS, Hall MA, Dhillon JK, Sugarman J (2006) Disclosing conflicts of interest in clinical research: views of institutional review boards, conflict of interest committees, and investigators. J Law Med Ethics 34(581–591):481
12.
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289:454–465CrossRefPubMed
13.
Shaywitz D, Stossel T (2009) It’s time to fight the “PharmaScolds”. In Wall Street Journal
14.
15.
Royal-College-of-Physicians (2009) Innovating for health: patient, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS. Report of a Working Party, London
16.
Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, Chimonas SC, DeAngelis CD, Hale RW, Nissen SE, Osborn JE, Scully JH Jr, Thomson GE, Wofsy D (2009) Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA 301:1367–1372CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Moses H 3rd, Dorsey ER, Matheson DH, Thier SO (2005) Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA 294:1333–1342CrossRefPubMed
19.
Olesen J, Lekander I, Andlin-Sobocki P, Jonsson B (2007) Funding of headache research in Europe. Cephalalgia 27:995–999CrossRefPubMed
20.
Philipson L (2005) Medical research activities, funding, and creativity in Europe: comparison with research in the United States. JAMA 294:1394–1398CrossRefPubMed
21.
Demotes-Mainard J, Canet E, Segard L (2006) Public–private partnership models in France and in Europe. Therapie 61(325–334):313–323CrossRef
22.
Moses H 3rd, Braunwald E, Martin JB, Thier SO (2002) Collaborating with industry—choices for the academic medical center. N Engl J Med 347:1371–1375CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong MK (2005) The limits of competing interest disclosures. Tob Control 14:118–126PubMed
24.
Sismondo S (2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 29:109–113CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Haas J (2008) Commentary: epidemiology and the pharmaceutical industry: an inside perspective. Int J Epidemiol 37:53–55, discussion 65-58CrossRefPubMed
27.
Boyd EA, Bero LA (2007) Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: an analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions. Sci Eng Ethics 13:415–435CrossRefPubMed
28.
Sismondo S (2007) Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Med 4:e286CrossRefPubMed
29.
Reginster JY (2007) The efficacy of glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis: financial and nonfinancial conflict of interest. Arthritis Rheum 56:2105–2110CrossRefPubMed
30.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (2008) Code on interactions with healthcare professionals
31.
Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L (2003) Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin 19:149–154CrossRefPubMed
32.
Schulman KA, Seils DM, Timbie JW, Sugarman J, Dame LA, Weinfurt KP, Mark DB, Califf RM (2002) A national survey of provisions in clinical-trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. N Engl J Med 347:1335–1341CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
35.
Hirsch L (2008) Trial registration and results disclosure: impact of US legislation on sponsors, investigators, and medical journal editors. Curr Med Res Opin 24:1683–1689CrossRefPubMed
36.
Goldhahn J, Mitlak B, Aspenberg P, Kanis JA, Rizzoli R, Reginster JY (2008) Critical issues in translational and clinical research for the study of new technologies to enhance bone repair. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(Suppl 1):43–47CrossRef
37.
Compston J, Reid DM, Boisdron J, Brandi ML, Burlet N, Cahall D, Delmas PD, Dere W, Devogelaer JP, Fitzpatrick LA, Flamion B, Goel N, Korte S, Laslop A, Mitlak B, Ormarsdottir S, Ringe J, Rizzoli R, Tsouderos Y, Van Staa T, Reginster JY (2008) Recommendations for the registration of agents for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: an update from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Osteoporos Int 19:1247–1250CrossRefPubMed
38.
Lekkerkerker F, Kanis JA, Alsayed N, Bouvenot G, Burlet N, Cahall D, Chines A, Delmas P, Dreiser RL, Ethgen D, Hughes N, Kaufman JM, Korte S, Kreutz G, Laslop A, Mitlak B, Rabenda V, Rizzoli R, Santora A, Schimmer R, Tsouderos Y, Viethel P, Reginster JY (2007) Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study. Osteoporos Int 18:1311–1317CrossRefPubMed
39.
Reginster JY, Abadie E, Delmas P, Rizzoli R, Dere W, der Auwera P, Avouac B, Brandi ML, Daifotis A, Diez-Perez A, Calvo G, Johnell O, Kaufman JM, Kreutz G, Laslop A, Lekkerkerker F, Mitlak B, Nilsson P, Orloff J, Smillie M, Taylor A, Tsouderos Y, Ethgen D, Flamion B (2006) Recommendations for an update of the current (2001) regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and in men. Osteoporos Int 17:1–7CrossRefPubMed
40.
Abadie E, Ethgen D, Avouac B, Bouvenot G, Branco J, Bruyere O, Calvo G, Devogelaer JP, Dreiser RL, Herrero-Beaumont G, Kahan A, Kreutz G, Laslop A, Lemmel EM, Nuki G, Van De Putte L, Vanhaelst L, Reginster JY (2004) Recommendations for the use of new methods to assess the efficacy of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 12:263–268CrossRefPubMed
41.
Holgate ST, Bousquet J, Chung KF, Bisgaard H, Pauwels R, Fabbri L, Rabe K, Doherty M, Snell NJ, Cuss F, D’Amato M, Reginster JY (2004) Summary of recommendations for the design of clinical trials and the registration of drugs used in the treatment of asthma. Respir Med 98:479–487CrossRefPubMed
42.
Delmas PD, Calvo G, Boers M, Abadie E, Avouac B, Kahan A, Kaufman JM, Laslop A, Lekkerkerker JF, Nilsson P, Van Zwieten-Boot B, Kreutz G, Reginster JY (2002) The use of placebo-controlled and non-inferiority trials for the evaluation of new drugs in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 13:1–5CrossRefPubMed
43.
Vignon E, Garnero P, Delmas P, Avouac B, Bettica P, Boers M, Ehrich E, MacKillop N, Rovati L, Serni U, Spector T, Reginster JY (2001) Recommendations for the registration of drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis: an update on biochemical markers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 9:289–293CrossRefPubMed
44.
Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) (1998) Recommendations for the registration of drugs used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: rheumatoid arthritis section. Br J Rheumatol 37:211–215CrossRef
45.
Kanis JA, Johnell O, Oden A, Johansson H, De Laet C, Eisman JA, Fujiwara S, Kroger H, McCloskey EV, Mellstrom D, Melton LJ, Pols H, Reeve J, Silman A, Tenenhouse A (2005) Smoking and fracture risk: a meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 16:155–162CrossRefPubMed
46.
Horrobin DF (1999) Beyond conflict of interest. Non-financial conflicts of interest are more serious than financial conflicts. BMJ 318:466PubMed
47.
The PLoS Medicine Editors (2008) Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 5:e199CrossRef
48.
Bero L (2008) “Experimental” institutional models for corporate funding of academic research: unknown effects on the research enterprise. J Clin Epidemiol 61:629–633CrossRefPubMed
49.
de Haas ER, de Vijlder HC, van Reesema WS, van Everdingen JJ, Neumann HA (2007) Quality of clinical practice guidelines in dermatological oncology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 21:1193–1198PubMed
50.
Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM (2007) Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 298:1002–1009CrossRefPubMed
51.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170CrossRefPubMed
52.
53.
54.
Ancker JS, Flanagin A (2007) A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in different scientific disciplines. Sci Eng Ethics 13:147–157CrossRefPubMed
55.
Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, Morris J (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 325:1391–1392CrossRefPubMed
56.
Healy D, Cattell D (2003) Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 183:22–27CrossRefPubMed
57.
McLennan M, Leong FC, Steele A, Harris J (2008) The influence of industry sponsorship on the acceptance of abstracts and their publication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(579):e571–e574
58.
Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Hoey J, Hojgaard L, Horton R, Kotzin S, Nicholls MG, Nylenna M, Overbeke AJ, Sox HC, Van Der Weyden MB, Wilkes MS (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet 358:854–856CrossRefPubMed
59.
Bodenheimer T (2000) Uneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 342:1539–1544CrossRefPubMed
60.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 277:927–934CrossRef
61.
Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D, Bruce-Winkler V, Conaty JM, Ellison JM, Field EA, Gurr JA, Marx ME, Patel M, Sanes-Miller C, Yarker YE (2009) Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ 339:b4330CrossRefPubMed
62.
Jacobs A, Wager E (2005) European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 21:317–322CrossRefPubMed
63.
Norris R, Bowman A, Fagan JM, Gallagher ER, Geraci AB, Gertel A, Hirsch L, Ross PD, Stossel TP, Veitch K, Woods D (2007) International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement: the role of the professional medical writer. Curr Med Res Opin 23:1837–1840CrossRefPubMed
64.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285:1987–1991CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES)
Authors
O. Bruyere
J. A. Kanis
M.-E. Ibar-Abadie
N. Alsayed
M. L. Brandi
N. Burlet
D. L. Cahall
A. Chines
J.-P. Devogelaer
W. Dere
N. Goel
N. Hughes
J.-M. Kaufman
S. Korte
B. H. Mitlak
D. Niese
R. Rizzoli
L. C. Rovati
J.-Y. Reginster
Publication date
01-05-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Osteoporosis International / Issue 5/2010
Print ISSN: 0937-941X
Electronic ISSN: 1433-2965
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1190-9

Other articles of this Issue 5/2010

Osteoporosis International 5/2010 Go to the issue

Original Article

Women with hip fracture experience greater loss of geometric strength in the contralateral hip during the year following fracture than age-matched controls

Original Article

Neovascular AMD: an overlooked risk factor for injurious falls

Letter

Alveolar bone density measurement in risk assessment for bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw: response to comments by Taguchi

Letter

Alveolar density measurement and bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws

Original Article

Elongated styloid process and atheroma in panoramic radiography and its relationship with systemic osteoporosis and osteopenia

Original Article

Replication study of candidate genes/loci associated with osteoporosis based on genome-wide screening