Hulaballoo over conflict of interests in cancer research
Jacob Koshy -
Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:29 PM
Let's say you read a brilliant research articled, and at the bottom a tiny asterisked note that says: "The author received funding from xyz company for this research." Would you be put off, or discard the just-a-few-minutes-ago-brilliant work as "compromised," "doubtful,"or worst of all "biased?"
A paper published in the latest issue of Cancer, says that nearly 29% of research papers on cancer research published by top journals noted a 'conflict of interest.' That means about 513 of the 1534 of the research articles analysed was a) funded by industry b) had ATLEAST one author who was part of industry. That's dangerous, says lead author Reshma Jagsi, of the University of Michigan, Ann Abour. Industry funded researchers, according to her, will be biased in their analyses.
"In light of these findings, we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding, especially in recent years, so it's been only natural for researchers to turn to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide," she concludes.
Absurd, I say. Most useful, good quality research (involving professional scientists) is either industry or public funded. Why should publicly-funded research have a halo of objectivity, or accuracy anymore than industry research? Hypothetically, say a pharma company funds research that promotes one drug over the other. The drug, therefore, is either effective/ineffective/as good as state-of-the-art medication (if one exists)
If it's ineffective, the industry loses money in that research, the researcher loses credibility. Nobody funds him anymore. Career ruined.
If it's as good as state of the art, why bother analysing it--unless it is cheaper. If it's cheaper, great, else same as above.
If effective. Then it's just honest advertising. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Unfortunately, scientists are generally perceived as higher beings. Unkempt, passionate geniuses tirelessly pursuing the long, hazardous road to the 'truth.' Truth is they are people with jobs, like everyone else. With beliefs, biases and brains, to design experiments (akin to arguments) to prove or disprove what they 'think' is right or wrong.
Consider India where over 85% of our research is publicly funded. So by Jagsi's reasoning, stellar, unbiased research gushes out of our academia. Well if it is, where is it? Director's of labs here hold press conferences if their scientists publish in Nature or Science, considered the top journals in the world, i mean that's how rare they are.
Objectivity, bias, bad data are issues to be handled by the editorial boards at science journals. Research is only as good as the honesty and intelligence of the editors and peer-reviewing scientists. Being competitive, human beings themselves, they have their own epaullettes and skeletons.
V J Gupta, of the fake Himalayan fossils fame, used public funds. As did tarnished stem cell rock star Hwang Woo-suk. So much for 'honest, objective' non-industry funded research.