Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tackling conflict of interest and misconduct in biomedical research

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Indian Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomedical research forms the basis of evidence based practices in the field of health and nutrition. However, it is, increasingly being seen that conflicts of interest and misconduct are undermining research. More and more instances of using research to promote commercial interest are being reported. Fraudulent means, in the quest to publish, are also being used. This article discusses conflict of interest and misconduct in bio-medical research, reviews scientific evidence available on the subject, and proposes some solutions to check the menace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996; 312:71–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidencebased medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992; 268:2420–2425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:573–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kassirer JP, Angell M. Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:570–571.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE]. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf. Accessed on April 25, 2012.

  6. Campbell EG, Zinner DE. Disclosing industry relationships—toward an improved federal research policy. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363:604–606.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Godlee F, Wager E. Research misconduct in the UK. BMJ. 2012; 344:d8357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tavare A. Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right? BMJ. 2011; 343:d8212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Indian Council of Medical Research (2006). Ethical guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human subjects. Available at: http://icmr.nic.in/ethical_guidelines.pdf. Accessed on April 30, 2012.

  10. Lee K, Mills A. Strengthening governance for global health research. BMJ. 2000; 321:775–776.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, Nierenberg AA. Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2005; 162:1957–1960.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004; 19:51–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blumenthal D, Gluck M, Louis KS, Stoto MA, Wise D. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science. 1986; 232:1361–1366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith R. Beyond conflict of interest. Transparency is the key. BMJ. 1998; 317:291–292.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Falkner F. Editorial. Int Child Health. 1997; viii:1.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lucas A. Collaborative research with infant formula companies should not always be censored. BMJ. 1998; 317:333–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rundall P. How much research in infant feeding comes from unethical marketing? BMJ. 1998; 317:333–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Blum JA, Freeman K, Dart RC, Cooper RJ. Requirements and definitions in conflict of interest policies of medical journals. JAMA. 2009; 302:2230–2234.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jaykaran, Yadav P, Chavda N, Kantharia ND. Survey of “instructions to authors” of Indian medical journals for reporting of ethics and authorship criteria. Indian J Med Ethics. 2011; 8:36–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors. J Gen Intern Med. 1995; 10:443–450.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sacristán JA, Bolaños E, Hernández JM, Soto J, Galende I. Publication bias in health economic studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997; 11:289–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1645–1650.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lo B. Serving two masters — Conflicts of interest in academic medicine. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:669–671.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chandra RK. Effect of vitamin and trace-element supplementation on cognitive function in elderly subjects. Nutrition. 2001;17;709–712.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Meguid MM. Retraction of Chandra RK. Effect of vitamin and trace-element supplementation on cognitive function in elderly subjects.(In-Nutrition. 2001;17:709–12); Nutrition 2005;21:286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith R. Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author. BMJ. 2005;331:288–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hamblin T. The secret life of Dr Chandra. BMJ. 2006;332:369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. INFACT Canada. Nestlé Scientist’s False Claims Exposed. Available at: http://www.infactcanada.ca/Chandra_Feb72006.htm. Accessed on April 25, 2012.

  29. Cohen D. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong? BMJ. 2010;341:c4848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2457–2471.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H, Curtis PS, Gomis R, Hanefeld M, et al. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes [RECORD]: a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2009;373:2125–2135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. The United States Senate Committee on Finance. Grassley, Baucus release committee report on Avandia. Available at: http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=bc56b552-efc5-4706-968df7032d5cd2e4. Accessed on April 25, 2012.

  33. Editorial. Strengthening the credibility of clinical research. Lancet. 2010;375:1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c1344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Stern S, Lemmens T. Legal remedies for medical ghost writing: imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghost written articles. PLoS Med. 2010;8:e1001070. Epub 2011 Aug 2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghost writing in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA. 2008;299:1800–1812.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Williams MJ, Kevat DA, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust. 2011;95:442–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen D, Carter P. Conflicts of interest. WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. BMJ. 2010;340:c2912.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Williams MJ, Kevat DA, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust. 2011;195:442–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neuman J, Korenstein D, Ross JS, Keyhani S. Prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among panel members producing clinical practice guidelines in Canada and United States: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2011;343:d5621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998;279:1566–1570.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. WHO. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]. Available at: http://www.who.int/ictrp/child/en/. Accessed on March 21, 2012.

  43. National Institute of Medical Statistics [NIMS]. The Clinical Trials Registry-India [CTRI]. Available at: http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/cont1.php. Accessed on March 21, 2012.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India (BPNI), Mumbai, India

    J. P. Dadhich

  2. 23, Canara Apartments, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi, 110085, India

    J. P. Dadhich

Authors
  1. J. P. Dadhich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. P. Dadhich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dadhich, J.P. Tackling conflict of interest and misconduct in biomedical research. Indian Pediatr 49, 527–531 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-012-0114-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-012-0114-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation