Relationships of pharmaceutical companies with academic researchers and physicians, their effects on practice: collaborators, conspirators, corruptors, or adversaries?
Abstract
Inevitably, there are numerous and frequent relationships between pharmaceutical companies and researchers or physicians in clinical practice. They can be a source of ethical problems, conflict of interest, and bias.
We review three types of relations: drug trials, education, and financial benefits. Industry-sponsored drug studies have been criticized for bias.
However, meta-analyses of published data (not conclusions) have not detected sponsorship bias. While the industry-sponsored educational activities are associated with a conflict of interest and a risk of bias, they may be superior to non-sponsored activities in terms of speed and flexibility needed to convey recent developments regarding safety and innovation.
Legal statutes or ethical codices regulate financial relationship in order to prevent suspicion of corruption. Conflict of interest must be disclosed, but it should be understood that it is, per se, not illegal, immoral, or objectionable.
Industry and academic psychiatrists should collaborate in the spirit of mutual respect. Their relationships should be transparent, potential conflicts of interest disclosed, including sponsorship of research and education.