Boyd E A, Bero L A
Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California St, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936, USA.
JAMA. 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2209-14. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.17.2209.
A growing number of academic researchers receive industry funding for clinical and basic research, but little is known about the personal financial relationships of researchers with their industry sponsors.
To assess the extent to which faculty researchers have personal financial relationships with the sponsors of their research, the nature of those financial relationships, and efforts made at the institutional level to address disclosed financial relationships and perceived conflicts of interest.
Case study of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Data sources included disclosure forms and official documents maintained by the UCSF Office of Research Administration from December 1980 to October 1999, including decisions made by the UCSF Chancellor's Advisory Panel on Relations with Industry.
Number and types of personal financial relationships with external sponsors (positive financial disclosures from all clinical, basic, or social science faculty who were principal investigators), amount of annual income received from sponsors, and decisions and management strategies used by the advisory panel.
By 1999, almost 7.6% of faculty investigators reported personal financial ties with sponsors of their research. Throughout the study period, 34% of disclosed relationships involved paid speaking engagements (range, $250-$20, 000 per year), 33% involved consulting agreements between researcher and sponsor (range, <$1000-$120,000 per year), and 32% involved the investigator holding a position on a scientific advisory board or board of directors. Fourteen percent involved equity ownership, and 12% involved multiple relationships. The advisory panel recommended managing perceived conflicts of interest in 26% of the cases, including recommending the sale of stock, refusing additional payment for talks, resigning from a management position, or naming a new principal investigator for a project.
Faculty researchers are increasingly involved in financial relationships with their research sponsors. Guidelines for what constitutes a conflict and how the conflict should be managed are needed if researchers are to have consistent standards of behavior among institutions. JAMA. 2000;284:2209-2214.
越来越多的学术研究人员获得行业资金用于临床和基础研究，但对于研究人员与其行业赞助商之间的个人财务关系却知之甚少。
评估教职研究人员与其研究赞助商之间个人财务关系的程度、这些财务关系的性质，以及机构层面为处理已披露的财务关系和感知到的利益冲突所做的努力。
加利福尼亚大学旧金山分校（UCSF）的案例研究。数据来源包括UCSF研究管理办公室1980年12月至1999年10月保存的披露表格和官方文件，包括UCSF校长行业关系咨询小组做出的决定。
与外部赞助商的个人财务关系的数量和类型（所有担任主要研究者的临床、基础或社会科学教职人员的积极财务披露）、从赞助商获得的年收入金额，以及咨询小组使用的决定和管理策略。
到1999年，近7.6%的教职研究人员报告与其研究赞助商存在个人财务关系。在整个研究期间，34%的已披露关系涉及有偿演讲活动（范围为每年250美元至20,000美元），33%涉及研究人员与赞助商之间的咨询协议（范围为每年低于1000美元至120,000美元），32%涉及研究人员在科学咨询委员会或董事会任职。14%涉及股权，12%涉及多重关系。咨询小组在26%的案例中建议处理感知到的利益冲突，包括建议出售股票、拒绝为演讲额外付费、辞去管理职务或为项目指定新的主要研究者。
教职研究人员越来越多地参与与其研究赞助商的财务关系。如果研究人员要在各机构之间保持一致的行为标准，就需要关于什么构成冲突以及应如何管理冲突的指导方针。《美国医学会杂志》。2000年；284:2209 - 2214。
