http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/343/22/1616
|
|
Conflict-of-Interest Policies for
Investigators in Clinical Trials
Bernard Lo, M.D., Leslie E. Wolf, J.D., M.P.H., and
Abiona Berkeley, J.D.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
Background There is substantial concern that financial
conflicts of interest on the part of investigators conducting
clinical trials may compromise the well-being of research subjects.
Methods We analyzed policies governing conflicts of interest at the
10 medical schools in the United States that receive the largest
amount of research funding from the National Institutes of Health.
These institutions are Baylor College of Medicine, Columbia
University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Harvard Medical
School, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the University
of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the University of California at
Los Angeles School of Medicine, the University of California at San
Francisco School of Medicine, the University of Washington School of
Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis, and
Yale University School of Medicine.
Results All 10 universities required that faculty members disclose financial
interests to university officials. Only four required disclosure by
all members of the research staff. Five universities required
disclosure of all financial interests, even though federal
regulations specify a threshold for disclosure. Six universities
required disclosure to the institutional review board as well as to
a committee on conflicts of interest or a university official. Four
universities had stricter requirements for investigators conducting
clinical trials than required by federal regulations. One university
prohibited investigators from having stock, stock options,
consulting agreements, or decision-making positions involving a
company that sponsored the research. A second university prohibited
researchers from trading stock or stock options in a company that
sponsored the research or sold the product or device under study.
Two universities ordinarily did not allow faculty members to
participate in clinical research if they had what federal
regulations refer to as a "significant" financial interest
in the company owning the product or device being studied, but
exceptions were allowed.
Conclusions Policies governing conflicts of interest at leading
medical schools in the United States vary widely. We suggest that
university-based investigators and research staff be prohibited from
holding stock, stock options, or decision-making positions in a
company that may reasonably appear to be affected by the results of
their clinical research. Of the 10 medical schools we studied, only
1 had a policy that was close to this standard.
Source Information
From the Program in Medical Ethics (B.L.,
L.E.W.), the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (B.L., L.E.W.), the Division of
General Internal Medicine (B.L., L.E.W.), and the Office of Student Affairs
(A.B.), University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Lo at bernie@medicine.ucsf.edu.
This article has been cited by other
articles:
|
HOME | SEARCH |
CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | HELP Comments
and questions? Please contact
us. The New England Journal of
Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2001 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights
reserved. |
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.