Blumenthal D, Campbell E G, Causino N, Louis K S
Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
N Engl J Med. 1996 Dec 5;335(23):1734-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199612053352305.
Recent research on academic-industrial research relationships in the life sciences has examined their frequency, benefits, risks, and evolution from the standpoint of industrial sponsors of research. We collected information on the extent and effects of academic-industrial research relationships from the standpoint of faculty members who participate in them.
We used a mailed questionnaire to collect data between October 1994 and April 1995 from 2052 faculty members (of 3169 eligible respondents; response rate, 65 percent) in the life sciences at the 50 U.S. universities receiving the most research funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Twenty-eight percent of the respondents received research support from industry. Faculty members receiving industrial funds had more peer-reviewed articles published in the previous three years, participated in more administrative activities in their institutions or disciplines, and were more commercially active than faculty members without such funding. However, faculty members receiving more than two thirds of their research support from industry were less academically productive than those receiving a lower level of industrial support, and their articles were less influential than those by researchers with no industrial support. Faculty members with industrial support were significantly more likely than those without industrial support to report that trade secrets had resulted from their work (14.5 percent vs. 4.7 percent, P<0.001) and that they had taken commercial considerations into account when choosing research topics (35 percent vs. 14 percent, P<0.001).
Faculty members with industrial research support are at least as productive academically as those without such support and are more productive commercially. However, faculty members who have research relationships with industry are more likely to restrict their communication with colleagues, and high levels of industrial support may be associated with less academic activity without evidence of proportional increases in commercial productivity.
近期关于生命科学领域学术-产业研究关系的研究，从研究的产业资助方的角度审视了这种关系的频率、益处、风险及演变情况。我们从参与其中的教员的角度，收集了有关学术-产业研究关系的范围及影响的信息。
我们于1994年10月至1995年4月，通过邮寄问卷的方式，从美国国立卫生研究院资助研究经费最多的50所大学的2052名生命科学教员（符合条件的3169名受访者中；回复率为65%）那里收集数据。
28%的受访者获得了产业界的研究支持。在过去三年里，获得产业资金的教员发表的同行评议文章更多，在其所在机构或学科中参与的行政活动更多，并且比没有此类资金的教员在商业方面更活跃。然而，研究经费的三分之二以上来自产业界的教员，其学术产出低于获得较低水平产业资助的教员，而且他们的文章影响力也低于没有产业资助的研究人员的文章。获得产业支持的教员比没有产业支持的教员更有可能报告其工作产生了商业机密（14.5%对4.7%，P<0.001），并且在选择研究课题时会考虑商业因素（35%对14%，P<0.001）。
获得产业研究支持的教员在学术上至少与没有此类支持的教员一样有产出，并且在商业方面更有产出。然而，与产业界有研究关系的教员更有可能限制与同事的交流，而且高水平的产业支持可能与较少的学术活动相关，同时没有证据表明商业生产力会相应提高。
