Institutional academic industry relationships

Psychiatrists' Cognitive and Affective Biases and the Practice of Psychopharmacology: Why Do Psychiatrists Differ From One Another in How They View and Prescribe Certain Medication Classes?

Cognitive and affective biases impact clinical decision-making in general medicine. This article explores how such biases might specifically affect psychiatrists' attitudes and prescribing patterns regarding two medication classes (stimulants and benzodiazepines) and addresses related issues. To supplement personal observations, selective PubMed narrative literature searches were conducted using relevant title/abstract terms, followed by snowballing for additional pertinent titles. Acknowledging that there are many more types of biases, we describe and use clinical vignettes to illustrate 17 cognitive and affective biases that might influence clinicians' psychopharmacological practices. Factors possibly underlying these biases include temperamental differences and both preprofessional and professional socialization. Mitigating strategies can reduce the potentially detrimental impacts that biases may impose on clinical care. How extensively these biases appear, how they differ among psychiatrists and across classes of medication, and how they might be most effectively addressed to minimize harms deserve further systematic study.

Self-Reported Conflicts of Interests and Financial Disclosures in The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review

Industry, academia, and professional societies provide financial and in-kind support for physician-lead research; however, the prevalence and role remain unreported. From consultancies to leadership positions, foot and ankle surgeons receive a spectrum of support. To provide transparency between these relationships and published outcomes, journals report conflicts of interest (COI) and financial disclosures (FD). This investigation analyzes self-reported COIs and FDs in The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery (JFAS)®. A systematic review of manuscripts reporting COIs and FDs from the January 2008 through November 2020 issues of JFAS was conducted. Editorials, commentaries, and technique articles were excluded. Disclosure type, level of evidence, and affiliated country of authorship were collected. Trends and proportions of articles with disclosures were analyzed from before a published Open Payments Database (OPD) (2008-2013) through 2020. Among 2699 articles, 382 reported a COI or FD. The number of manuscripts with COIs and FDs increased since 2008 (p < .001). The proportion of articles with COIs or FDs was greater after the OPD was published compared to prior (p < .001). Overall, 86.35% of reported COIs were industry related while 37.09% of FDs were hospital, university, or state sponsor affiliated. International authorship was a negative predictor of COIs and FDs (p < .001). Level 3 and 4 studies were 4.60 (95%CI [0.85-24.85]) and 5.56 (95%CI [1.04-29.72]) times as likely to have self-reported a COI compared to level 1 studies, respectively. Level 2 and 5 studies were 0.33 (95%CI [0.04-3.16]) and 0.36 (95%CI [0.04-3.13]) times as likely to have self-reported a FD compared to level 1 studies, respectively. This investigation found an increase in the proportion of manuscripts with self-reported COIs and FDs since first documented in JFAS. These findings illustrate the ubiquity of author industry involvement, though future studies may examine the relevancy of these roles to published research.

Health Care Clinicians and Product Promotion by Industry

Medical pharmaceutical and device manufacturers are essential in making products that benefit patients, and collaboration between health care clinicians and the industry is necessary for the design and manufacture of these medical products. However, health care clinicians must recognize that their duties and the interests of the industry may at times diverge. Relationships with the industry, even seemingly minor ones, have the potential to shape the decisions made on behalf of patients. The marketing divisions of pharmaceutical and medical device firms view health care clinicians as targets of their efforts, and some of the interactions that occur between the industry and health care clinicians have the potential to alter decision making in ways that may not necessarily benefit patients. Health care clinicians have an ethical duty to recognize situations and marketing strategies that are designed to influence their choice of diagnostic and therapeutic options for their patients. At a minimum, health care clinicians should be aware of the techniques used to attempt to alter their behavior and guard against them.

Payments by Industry to Residency Program Directors in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

To assess the proportion, nature, and extent of financial payments from industry to residency program directors in the United States.

METHOD

This cross-sectional study used open-source data from Doximity and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) open payments database. Profiles of 4,686 residency program directors from 28 different specialties were identified using Doximity and matched to records in the CMS database. All payments received per residency program director over the years 2014 to 2018 were extracted, including amount in U.S. dollars, payment year, and nature of payment (research versus general payments). Total payments (research plus general payments) received over the 5 years were added up per residency program director. Only personal payments were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 74% (3,465/4,686) of all residency program directors received 1 or more personal payments, totaling $77,058,139, with a median of $216 (interquartile range, $0-$2,150) and a mean of $16,444 (standard deviation, $183,061) per residency program director over the 5 years. Ninety-five percent of total payment value were general payments, and 5% were personal research payments. About 11% (536/4,686) of residency program directors received more than $10,000, while 3% (133/4,686) received more than $100,000 in the study years. There was a substantial difference in the proportion (P < .001), nature (P < .001), and amount (P < .001) of payments of residency program directors between specialties. Almost all residency program directors of interventional radiology (96% [74/77]), vascular surgery (96% [53/55]), and orthopedic surgery (92% [184/201]) received payments, while only one-third to one-half of those in preventive medicine (29% [18/62]), pediatrics (43% [90/211]), and pathology (51% [73/143]) received payments.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to residency program directors are common, although large variation exists between specialties. The majority of direct payments to residency program directors are for non-research-related activities.

Gender differences in the medical industries’ payments to physicians: a systematic review

Purpose

This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD).

Design/methodology/approach

Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Findings

The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries.

Originality/value

There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.

Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify all known ties between the medical product industry and the healthcare ecosystem.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

From initial literature searches and expert input, a map was created to show the network of medical product industry ties across parties and activities in the healthcare ecosystem. Through a scoping review, the ties were then verified, cataloged, and characterized, with data abstracted on types of industry ties (financial, non-financial), applicable policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data sources.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Presence and types of medical product industry ties to activities and parties, presence of policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data.

RESULTS

A map derived through synthesis of 538 articles from 37 countries shows an extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties in the healthcare ecosystem. Key activities include research, healthcare education, guideline development, formulary selection, and clinical care. Parties include non-profit entities, the healthcare profession, the market supply chain, and government. The medical product industry has direct ties to all parties and some activities through multiple pathways; direct ties extend through interrelationships among parties and activities. The most frequently identified parties were within the healthcare profession, with individual professionals described in 422 (78%) of the included studies. More than half (303, 56%) of the publications documented medical product industry ties to research, with clinical care (156, 29%), health professional education (145, 27%), guideline development (33, 6%), and formulary selection (8, 1%) appearing less often. Policies for conflict of interests exist for some financial and a few non-financial ties; publicly available data sources seldom describe or quantify these ties.

CONCLUSIONS

An extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties exists in the healthcare ecosystem. Policies for conflict of interests and publicly available data are lacking, suggesting that enhanced oversight and transparency are needed to protect patient care from commercial influence and to ensure public trust.

Ethical Perspectives of Chinese and United States Physicians at Initiation of a Research Collaborative

Variances in perceived standards regarding research integrity appear to exist between China and the U.S. An established joint institute for translational and clinical research between one Chinese and one U.S. health system provides a valuable venue in which to evaluate these perceptions better. We therefore undertook a survey of 209 physicians at the two institutions in 2013-14. The vast majority of physicians from both institutions understood the necessity of obtaining informed consent from research participants, the need to provide a description of the risks of participation, and the voluntary nature of research participation. However, there were differences in responses between the two sites in willingness to report plagiarism (U.S. 95.65% vs. Chinese 40.21%; p < .0001) and data falsification (U.S. 100% vs. Chinese 81.25%; p < .0001) and in willingness to attend biomedical industry-funded promotional events (U.S. 11.0% vs. Chinese 74.0%; p < .0001). When planning to conduct collaborative clinical research across cultures, particularly when uncertainty regarding the similarity of research cultures exists, exploration of cultural and ethical norms in research may be informative regarding educational needs and the risks of research and academic misconduct.

Impact of US industry payment disclosure laws on payments to surgeons: a natural experiment

OBJECTIVES

To compare changes in the number and amount of payments received by orthopedic and non-orthopedic surgeons from industry between 2014 and 2017.

METHODS

Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database from 2014 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of industry payments to surgeons, including general payments and research payments.

RESULTS

Among orthopedic surgeons, the total number of general payments decreased from 248,698 in 2014 to 241,966 in 2017, but their total value increased from $97.1 million in 2014 to $110.2 million in 2017. Among non-orthopedic surgeons, the total number decreased from 604,884 in 2014 to 582,490 in 2017, while the total value remained stable at approximately $159 million. Between 2014 and 2017, there was a differential increase in the median number of general payments received by non-orthopedic when compared to orthopedic surgeons (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.09; p < 0.001), but a differential decline in the median value of general payments (- 8.9%; 95% CI, - 9.5%, - 8.4%; p < 0.001). Findings were consistent when stratified by nature of payment. In contrast, between 2014 and 2017, there was neither a differential change in the median number nor median value of research payments received by non-orthopedics.

CONCLUSION

Examination of a natural experiment of prior public disclosure of payments to orthopedic surgeons suggests that the Physician Payment Sunshine Act was associated with an increase in the number, but a decline in the value, of general payments received by non-orthopedic surgeons, but not on research payments received.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Importance

Financial relationships between physicians and industry have influence on patient care. Therefore, organizations producing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) must have policies limiting financial conflicts during guideline development.

Objectives

To evaluate payments received by physician authors of otolaryngology CPGs, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, and investigate the extent to which the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery complied with standards for guideline development from the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis retrieved CPGs from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation that were published or revised from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, by 49 authors. Data were retrieved from December 1 through 31, 2016. Industry payments received by authors were extracted using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. The values and types of these payments were then evaluated and used to determine whether self-reported disclosure statements were accurate and whether guidelines adhered to applicable IOM standards.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The monetary amounts and types of payments received by physicians who author otolaryngology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements.

Results

Of the 49 physicians in this sample, 39 (80%) received an industry payment. Twenty-one authors (43%) accepted more than $1000; 12 (24%), more than $10 000; 7 (14%), more than $50 000; and 2 (4%), more than $100 000. Mean (SD) financial payments amounted to $18 431 ($53 459) per physician. Total reimbursement for all authors was $995 282. Disclosure statements disagreed with the Open Payments database for 3 authors, amounting to approximately $20 000 among them. Of the 3 IOM standards assessed, only 1 was consistently enforced.

Conclusions and Relevance

Some CPG authors failed to fully disclose all financial conflicts of interest, and most guideline development panels and chairpersons had conflicts. In addition, adherence to IOM standards for guideline development was lacking. This study is relevant to CPG panels authoring recommendations, physicians implementing CPGs to guide patient care, and the organizations establishing policies for guideline development.

Validating curricular competencies in innovation and entrepreneurship for biomedical research trainees: A modified Delphi approach

INTRODUCTION

Biomedical researchers need skills in innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) to efficiently translate scientific discoveries into products and services to be used to improve health.

METHODS

In 2016, the European Union identified and published 15 entrepreneurial competencies (EntreComp) for the general population. To validate the appropriateness of these competencies for I&E training for biomedical researchers and to identify program content, we conducted six modified Delphi panels of 45 experts (6-9 per panel). Participating experts had diverse experience, representing such fields as entrepreneurship, academic research, venture capital, and industry.

RESULTS

The experts agreed that all 15 EntreComp competencies were important for biomedical research trainees and no additional competencies were identified. In a two-round Delphi process, the experts identified 120 topics to be included in a training curriculum. They rated the importance of each topic using a 5-point scale from not at all important (1) to extremely important (5) for two student groups: entrepreneurs (those interested in starting their own ventures) and intrapreneurs (those wanting to be innovative and strategic within academia or industry). Consensus (mean importance score >4) was reached that 85 (71%) topics were of high importance for the curriculum. Four topics were identified by multiple panels for both student groups: resiliency, goal setting, team management, and communication skills.

CONCLUSIONS

I&E training for biomedical trainees should address all 15 EntreComp competencies, including "soft skills," and be flexible to accommodate the needs of trainees on different career trajectories.

The Bionic Radiologist: avoiding blurry pictures and providing greater insights

Radiology images and reports have long been digitalized. However, the potential of the more than 3.6 billion radiology examinations performed annually worldwide has largely gone unused in the effort to digitally transform health care. The Bionic Radiologist is a concept that combines humanity and digitalization for better health care integration of radiology. At a practical level, this concept will achieve critical goals: (1) testing decisions being made scientifically on the basis of disease probabilities and patient preferences; (2) image analysis done consistently at any time and at any site; and (3) treatment suggestions that are closely linked to imaging results and are seamlessly integrated with other information. The Bionic Radiologist will thus help avoiding missed care opportunities, will provide continuous learning in the work process, and will also allow more time for radiologists' primary roles: interacting with patients and referring physicians. To achieve that potential, one has to cope with many implementation barriers at both the individual and institutional levels. These include: reluctance to delegate decision making, a possible decrease in image interpretation knowledge and the perception that patient safety and trust are at stake. To facilitate implementation of the Bionic Radiologist the following will be helpful: uncertainty quantifications for suggestions, shared decision making, changes in organizational culture and leadership style, maintained expertise through continuous learning systems for training, and role development of the involved experts. With the support of the Bionic Radiologist, disparities are reduced and the delivery of care is provided in a humane and personalized fashion.

Beyond financial conflicts of interest: Institutional oversight of faculty consulting agreements at schools of medicine and public health

IMPORTANCE

Approximately one-third of U.S. life sciences faculty engage in industry consulting. Despite reports that consulting contracts often impinge on faculty and university interests, institutional approaches to regulating consulting agreements are largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the nature of institutional oversight of faculty consulting contracts at U.S. schools of medicine and public health.

DESIGN

Structured telephone interviews with institutional administrators. Questions included the nature of oversight for faculty consulting agreements, if any, and views about consulting as a private versus institutional matter. Interviews were analyzed using a structured coding scheme.

SETTING

All accredited schools of medicine and public health in the U.S.

PARTICIPANTS

Administrators responsible for faculty affairs were identified via internet searches and telephone and email follow-up. The 118 administrators interviewed represented 73% of U.S. schools of medicine and public health, and 75% of those invited to participate.

INTERVENTION

Structured, 15-30 minute telephone interviews.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence and type of institutional oversight; responses to concerning provisions in consulting agreements; perceptions of institutional oversight.

RESULTS

One third of institutions (36%) required faculty to submit at least some agreements for institutional review and 36% reviewed contracts upon request, while 35% refused to review contracts. Among institutions with review, there was wide variation the issues covered. The most common topic was intellectual property rights (64%), while only 23% looked at publication rights and 19% for inappropriately broad confidentiality provisions. Six in ten administrators reported they had no power to prevent faculty from signing consulting agreements. Although most respondents identified institutional risks from consulting relationships, many maintained that consulting agreements are "private."

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Oversight of faculty consulting agreements at U.S. schools of medicine and public health is inconsistent across institutions and usually not robust. The interests at stake suggest the need for stronger oversight.

Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists

PURPOSE

Industry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity.

MATERIALS/METHODS

CMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

There is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.

Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review

Conflicts of interest (COIs) do occur in healthcare research, yet their impact on research in the field of infection prevention and control (IPC) is unknown. We conducted a narrative review aiming to identify examples of COIs in IPC research. In addition to well-known instances, we conducted PubMed and Google searches to identify and report case studies of COIs in IPC and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which were chosen arbitrarily following consensus meetings, to illustrate different types of COIs. We also searched the Retraction Watch database and blog to systematically identify retracted IPC and/or infectious disease-related papers. Our review highlights COIs in academic research linked to ties between industry and physicians, journal editors, peer-reviewed journals' choice for publication, and guideline committees participants and authors. It explores how COIs can affect research and could be managed. We also present several selected case studies that involve (1) the chlorhexidine industry and how it has used marketing trials and key opinion leaders to promote off-label use of its products; (2) the copper industry and how reporting of its trials in IPC have furthered their agenda; (3) the influence of a company developing "closed infusion systems" for catheters and how this affects networks in low- and middle-income countries and guideline development; (4) potential perverse incentives hospitals may have in reporting healthcare-associated infection or AMR rates and how government intervention may restrict AMR research for fear of bad publicity and subsequent negative economic consequences. Finally, the analysis of reasons for the retraction of previously published papers highlights the fact that misconduct in research may have other motivations than financial gain, the most visible form of COIs. COIs occur in the field of research in general, and IPC and AMR are no exceptions. Their effects pervade all aspects of the research and publication processes. We believe that, in addition to improvements in management strategies of COIs, increased public funding should be available to decrease researchers' dependency on industry ties. Further research is needed on COIs and their management.

Expert communities and interest-formation in the Brazilian AIDS program

This paper examines the role of the Technical Advisory Committee for antiretroviral therapy of the Brazilian AIDS program in mediating the decision-making process of including new antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in the Unified Health System services by the end of the 2000s. We conducted documental analysis and interviews with key informants from the governmental sphere and professionals. The work features the Technical Advisory Committee as an "expert community", defined as a network of individuals with expertise and competence in a particular sphere and whose knowledge is relevant in critical public policy decision areas. It also indicates that the decision-making process for inclusion of antiretroviral drugs in the Brazilian program was incremental, considering the expectations of the innovative leader companies of pharmaceutical market. The work describes thus the results of the interaction of government interests, pharmaceutical industry and experts in the implementation of a relevant international policy. It provides arguments and evidence for understanding the role of expert communities on a sectorial public policy so far analyzed predominantly from the perspective of social movements.

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors.Design Retrospective observational study.Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014.Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal's online masthead.Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible.Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals.Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore conflicts of interest (COI) and their reporting in systematic reviews of psychological therapies, and to evaluate spin in the conclusions of the reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2013 that assessed effects of psychological therapies for anxiety, depressive or personality disorders, and included at least one randomised controlled trial. Required COI disclosure by journal, disclosed COI by review authors, and the inclusion of own primary studies by review authors were extracted. Researcher allegiance, that is, that researchers concluded favourably about the interventions they have studied, as well as spin, that is, differences between results and conclusions of the reviews, were rated by 2 independent raters.

RESULTS

936 references were retrieved, 95 reviews fulfilled eligibility criteria. 59 compared psychological therapies with other forms of psychological therapies, and 36 psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions. Financial, non-financial, and personal COI were disclosed in 22, 4 and 1 review, respectively. 2 of 86 own primary studies of review authors included in 34 reviews were disclosed by review authors. In 15 of the reviews, authors showed an allegiance effect to the evaluated psychological therapy that was never disclosed. Spin in review conclusions was found in 27 of 95 reviews. Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions (OR=8.31 (1.41 to 49.05)). Spin was related in trend to the inclusion of own primary studies in the systematic review (OR=2.08 (CI 0.83 to 5.18) p=0.11) and researcher allegiance (OR=2.63 (0.84 to 8.16) p=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-financial COI, especially the inclusion of own primary studies into reviews and researcher allegiance, are frequently seen in systematic reviews of psychological therapies and need more transparency and better management.

A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research

The medical literature is prone to overstating results, a condition not thoroughly recognized among policymakers. This article sets forth examples of potential problems with research integrity in the infectious disease literature. We describe articles that may be spun, categories lumped together in hopes of creating a significant effect (and sometimes an insignificant one), changes in metrics, and how trials may fail because of suboptimal interventions. When examined together, the examples show that the problems are widespread and illustrate the difficulty associated with interpreting medical research. The state of the current medical literature makes it of utmost importance that all sections of the manuscript are read, including associated letters to the editors and information on ClinicalTrials.gov before authors' recommendations are accepted.

Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Trials

Conflicts of interests have long been recognized as potential sources of influence in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. This controversy was again rekindled after the publication of the latest statin guidelines and a series of studies regarding competing interests in leading medical journals. We investigate the association between declared author conflicts and the outcomes of large cardiovascular trials. We searched the Medline (PubMed) database to identify "phase 2" and "phase 3" clinical trials using the search term "cardiovascular" over the past decade using "10 years" as the filter. We perceived the competing interest as present regardless of the nature such as consulting fees, honoraria, travel imbursements, stock holding, and employment. Of the 699 titles retrieved, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly 80% of studies had at least a single author with competing interests. The 114 studies had a total of 1,433 investigators, of which 725 had declared conflicts of interests (50.6%). A total of 66 studies (58%) had half or >50 percent of investigators who had some conflicts of interests. Of these studies, 54 studies had favorable outcomes and only 12 had unfavorable outcomes (p <0.001). Among the type of competing interests, consulting or personal fees was the most common present in 58 investigators (51%). This was followed by research grants present in 55 the researchers (48%). Among 25 (22%) studies, at least one investigator reported stakes in the industry, of which only 2 studies had unfavorable outcomes for the intervention being investigated. Just 1 of the 25 clinical trials with a sample size of >1,000 had no investigators with competing interests. In conclusion, authors conflicts are associated with favorable outcomes in cardiovascular outcome trials.

Teaching Conflict: Professionalism and Medical Education

Resistance by physicians, medical researchers, medical educators, and medical students to pharmaceutical industry influence in medicine is often based on the notion that physicians (guided by the ethics of their profession) and the industry (guided by profit) are in conflict. This criticism has taken the form of a professional movement opposing conflict of interest (COI) in medicine and medical education and has resulted in policies and guidelines that frame COI as the problem and outline measures to address this problem. In this paper, I offer a critique of this focus on COI that is grounded in a broader critique of neo-liberalism, arguing it individualizes the relationship between physicians and industry, too neatly delineates between the two entities, and reduces the network of social, economic, and political relations to this one dilemma.

Prevalence and compensation of academic leaders, professors, and trustees on publicly traded US healthcare company boards of directors: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To identify the prevalence, characteristics, and compensation of members of the boards of directors of healthcare industry companies who hold academic appointments as leaders, professors, or trustees.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

US healthcare companies publicly traded on the NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange in 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

3434 directors of pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical equipment and supply, and healthcare provider companies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence, annual compensation, and beneficial stock ownership of directors with affiliations as leaders, professors, or trustees of academic medical and research institutions.

RESULTS

446 healthcare companies met the study search criteria, of which 442 (99%) had publicly accessible disclosures on boards of directors. 180 companies (41%) had one or more academically affiliated directors. Directors were affiliated with 85 geographically diverse non-profit academic institutions, including 19 of the top 20 National Institute of Health funded medical schools and all of the 17 US News honor roll hospitals. Overall, these 279 academically affiliated directors included 73 leaders, 121 professors, and 85 trustees. Leaders included 17 chief executive officers and 11 vice presidents or executive officers of health systems and hospitals; 15 university presidents, provosts, and chancellors; and eight medical school deans or presidents. The total annual compensation to academically affiliated directors for their services to companies was $54,995,786 (£35,836,000; €49,185,900) (median individual compensation $193,000) and directors beneficially owned 59,831,477 shares of company stock (median 50,699 shares).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number and diversity of academic leaders, professors, and trustees hold directorships at US healthcare companies, with compensation often approaching or surpassing common academic clinical salaries. Dual obligations to for profit company shareholders and non-profit clinical and educational institutions pose considerable personal, financial, and institutional conflicts of interest beyond that of simple consulting relationships. These conflicts have not been fully addressed by professional societies or academic institutions and deserve additional review, regulation, and, in some cases, prohibition when conflicts cannot be reconciled.

Examination of Industry Payments to Radiation Oncologists in 2014 Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

PURPOSE

To use the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to characterize payments made to radiation oncologists and compare their payment profile with that of medical and surgical oncologists.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The June 2015 release of the Open Payments database was accessed, containing all payments made to physicians in 2014. The general payments dataset was used for analysis. Data on payments made to medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists was obtained and compared. Within radiation oncology, data regarding payment category, sponsorship, and geographic distribution were identified. Basic statistics including mean, median, range, and sum were calculated by provider and by transaction.

RESULTS

Among the 3 oncologic specialties, radiation oncology had the smallest proportion (58%) of compensated physicians and the lowest mean ($1620) and median ($112) payment per provider. Surgical oncology had the highest proportion (84%) of compensated physicians, whereas medical oncology had the highest mean ($6371) and median ($448) payment per physician. Within radiation oncology, nonconsulting services accounted for the most money to physicians ($1,042,556), whereas the majority of the sponsors were medical device companies (52%). Radiation oncologists in the West accepted the most money ($2,041,603) of any US Census region.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncologists in 2014 received a large number of payments from industry, although less than their medical or surgical counterparts. As the Open Payments database continues to be improved, it remains to be seen whether this information will be used by patients to inform choice of providers or by lawmakers to enact policy regulating physician-industry relationships.

Gender Differences in Physicians' Financial Ties to Industry: A Study of National Disclosure Data

Background

Academic literature extensively documents gender disparities in the medical profession with regard to salary, promotion, and government funded research. However, gender differences in the value of financial ties to industry have not been adequately studied despite industry’s increasing contribution to income and research funding to physicians in the U.S.

Methods & Findings

We analyzed publicly reported financial relationships among 747,603 physicians and 432 pharmaceutical, device and biomaterials companies. Demographic and payment information were analyzed using hierarchical regression models to determine if statistically significant gender differences exist in physician-industry interactions regarding financial ties, controlling for key covariates. In 2011, 432 biomedical companies made an excess of $17,991,000 in payments to 220,908 physicians. Of these physicians, 75.1% were male. Female physicians, on average, received fewer total dollars (-$3,598.63, p<0.001) per person than men. Additionally, female physicians received significantly lower amounts for meals (-$41.80, p<0.001), education (-$1,893.14, p<0.001), speaker fees (-$2,898.44, p<0.001), and sponsored research (-$15,049.62, p=0.05). For total dollars, an interaction between gender and institutional reputation was statistically significant, implying that the differences between women and men differed based on industry’s preference for an institution, with larger differences at higher reputation institutions.

Conclusions

Female physicians receive significantly lower compensation for similarly described activities than their male counterparts after controlling for key covariates. As regulations lead to increased transparency regarding these relationships, efforts to standardize compensation should be considered to promote equitable opportunities for all physicians.

The impact of industry on oncology research and practice

Public scrutiny has increased over potential conflicts of interest among oncology researchers and providers. Given the increased prevalence and complexity of industry relationships, oncologists are increasingly faced with ethical challenges when navigating their financial relationships with industry. Oncologists are continually dealing with changing conflict of interest policies within academic centers and professional societies. With the recent passage of The Sunshine Act, oncologists are beginning to understand the repercussions of this new law. The consequences of the increasing use of direct-to-consumer advertising on patients with cancer are also unclear. Finally, industry's perspective on the evolution of these relationships is not clearly understood. This manuscript discusses issues related to industry's influence on oncology practice and research.

Conflicts of interest in psychiatry: strategies to cultivate literacy in daily practice

The relationship between psychiatry and pharmaceutical companies has come under scrutiny during the past decade. Concerns are growing that financial ties of psychiatrists to the pharmaceutical industry may unduly influence professional judgments involving the primary interests of patients. Such conflicts of interest threaten the public trust in psychiatry. The goal of conflict of interest policies is to protect the integrity of professional judgment and to preserve public trust. The disclosure of individual and institutional financial relationships is a critical but limited first step in the process of identifying and responding to conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest policies and procedures can be strengthened by engaged psychiatrists, researchers, institutions, and professional associations in developing policies and consensus standards. Research on conflicts of interest can provide a stronger evidence base for policy design and implementation. Society has traditionally granted the medical profession considerable autonomy and may be willing to continue do so in the case of conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, concern is growing that stronger measures are needed. To avoid undue regulatory burdens, psychiatrists can play a vital role in designing responsible and reasonable conflict of interest policies that reduce the risks of bias and the loss of trust. Psychiatrists and the institutions that carry out research, education, clinical care, and practice guideline development must recognize public concerns about conflicts of interest and take effective measures soon to maintain public trust with a cultural change in the practice of psychiatry, from reactive treatment-seeking for mental illness to proactive advocacy for patients.

Questionable content of an industry-supported medical school lecture series: a case study

BACKGROUND

Medical schools are grappling with how best to manage industry involvement in medical education.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a case study of industry-supported undergraduate medical education related to opioid analgesics.

METHOD

Institutional case study.

RESULTS

As part of their regular curriculum, Canadian medical students attended pain pharmacotherapy lectures that contained questionable content about the use of opioids for pain management. The lectures were supported by pharmaceutical companies that market opioid analgesics in Canada and the guest lecturer was a member of speakers bureaus of the same companies. These conflicts of interests were not fully disclosed. A reference book that reinforced some of the information in the lectures and that was paid for by a sponsoring company was made available to students. This is the first report of an association between industry sponsorship and the dissemination of potentially dangerous information to medical students.

CONCLUSIONS

This case demonstrates the need for better strategies for preventing, identifying and dealing with problematic interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and undergraduate medical education. These might include the avoidance of unnecessary conflicts of interest, more disclosure of conflicts, an open process for dealing with recognised problems and internationally harmonised conflict of interest policies.

Strengthened ties between industry and academia are historical, productive, and crucial

Scientific collaboration between academia and industry has a long history in the United States and abroad. Initially U.S. companies took responsibility for patenting and licensing discoveries made in collaborating universities. A publicly funded "middle man", The Research Corporation, was the next paradigm and had the advantages of neutrality and centralization, but proved ultimately unworkable. More recently, universities have negotiated their own patenting and licensing activities. The ethical pitfalls of scientists and physicians dealing directly with industry stimulated much public discussion in the past decade, with a resultant backlash discouraging collaboration. I discuss this evolution, and recent developments with models of possible productive collaboration and rules of engagement.

Focusing on Cause or Cure?: Priorities and Stakeholder Presence in Childhood Psychiatry Research

BACKGROUND

Biomedical research is influenced by many factors, including the involvement of stakeholder groups invested in research outcomes. Stakeholder involvement in research efforts raise questions of justice as their specific interests and motivations play a role in directing research resources that ultimately produce knowledge shaping how different conditions (and affected individuals) are understood and treated by society. This issue is highly relevant to child psychiatry research where diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies are often controversial. Biological similarities and stakeholder differences between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) provide an opportunity to explore this issue by comparing research foci and stakeholder involvement in these conditions.

METHODS

A subset of ADHD and ASD research articles published between 1970-2010 were randomly selected from the PubMed database and coded for research focus, funding source(s), and author-reported conflicts of interest (COIs). Chi-square analyses were performed to identify differences between and within ADHD and ASD research across time.

RESULTS

The proportion of ADHD research dedicated to basic, description, and treatment research was roughly similar and remained stable over time, while ASD research showed a significant increase in basic research over the past decade. Government was the primary research funder for both conditions, but for-profit funders were a notable presence in ADHD research, while joint-funding efforts between non-profit and government funders were a notable presence in ASD research. Lastly, COIs were noted more frequently in ADHD than in ASD research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows significant differences in research foci and funding sources between the conditions, and identifies the specific involvement of for-profit and non-profit groups in ADHD and ASD, respectively. Our findings highlight the relationship between stakeholders outside the research community and research trajectories and suggest that examinations of these relationships must be included in broader considerations of biomedical research ethics.

Conflict of Interest in Research—The Clinician Scientist’s Perspective

Conflict of interest (COI) in research represents situations that pose risks of undue influence on scientific objectivity and judgment because of secondary interests. This is complex but is inherent to biomedical research. The role of a clinician scientist can be conflicted when scientific objectivity is perceived to compete with scientific success (publications, grants), partiality to patients (clinical trials), obligations to colleagues (allowing poor scholarship to pass), research sponsors (industry), and financial gains (patents, royalties). While there are many ways which COIs can occur in research, COI mitigations remain reliable. Collaborations between investigators and industry are valuable to the development of novel therapies and undue discouragement of these relationships may inadvertently harm the advancement of healthcare. As a result, proper management of COI is fundamental and crucial to the maintenance of long-term, mutually beneficial relationships between industry and academia. The nature of COI in research and methods of mitigation are discussed from the perspective of a clinician scientist. Key words: Academia, Disclosure, Industry

Changing interactions between physician trainees and the pharmaceutical industry: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, medical school policies limit pharmaceutical representatives' access to students and gifts from drugmakers, but little is known about how these policies affect student attitudes toward industry.

OBJECTIVE

To assess interactions between trainees and the pharmaceutical industry, and to determine whether learning environment characteristics influence students' practices and attitudes.

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey with a nationally-representative sample of first- and fourth-year medical students and third-year residents, stratified by medical school, including ≥ 14 randomly selected trainees at each level per school.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured frequency of industry interactions and attitudes regarding how such interactions affect medical training and the profession. Chi-squared tests assessed bivariate linear trend, and hierarchical logistic regression models were fitted to assess associations between trainees' attitudes and their schools' National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding levels and American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard grades reflecting industry-related conflict of interest policies.

KEY RESULTS

Among 1,610 student (49.3 % response rate) and 739 resident (43.1 %) respondents, industry-sponsored gifts were common, rising from 33.0 % (first-year students) to 56.8 % (fourth-year students) and 54 % (residents) (p < 0.001). These gifts included meals outside the hospital (reported by 5 % first-year students, 13.4 % fourth-year students, 27.5 % residents (p < 0.001)) and free drug samples (reported by 7.4 % first-year students, 14.1 % fourth-year students, 14.3 % residents (p < 0.001)). The perception that industry interactions lead to bias was prevalent, but the belief that physicians receive valuable education through these interactions increased (64.1 % to 67.5 % to 79.8 %, p < 0.001). Students in schools receiving more NIH funding reported industry gifts less often (OR = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.68, p < 0.001), but the strength of institutional conflict of interest policies was not associated with this variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent policy changes, a substantial number of trainees continue to receive gifts from pharmaceutical representatives. We found no relation between these outcomes and a school's policies concerning interactions with industry.

Correlation between financial relationships with commercial interests and research prominence at an oncology meeting

PURPOSE

Little is known about the effects of financial relationships between biomedical researchers and industry (financial conflicts of interest [FCOIs]) on research prominence. We examined the prevalence of FCOIs in oncology and associations between FCOIs and research prominence among abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meetings.

METHODS

We analyzed 20,718 abstracts presented at ASCO meetings in 2006 and 2008 to 2011. Measures included the following: financial relationships, peer review score (PRS), and meeting placement prominence (descending order of prominence: plenary session, clinical science symposium, oral presentation, poster discussion, general posters, and publish only).

RESULTS

Of 20,718 abstracts, 36% reported at least one author with an FCOI. The proportion of abstracts with any FCOI increased from 33% in 2006 to 38% in 2011 (P < .001). Abstracts with FCOIs had significantly higher meeting prominence compared with publish only and general poster abstracts. The odds ratios compared with general posters were 7.3 for plenary session, 2.2 for clinical science symposium, 1.9 for oral presentation, and 1.7 for poster discussion (P < .001). Abstracts with FCOIs had significantly better PRSs compared with those without FCOIs. For all abstracts, PRS was 2.76 (95% CI, 2.75 to 2.77) with FCOIs compared with 3.01 (95% CI, 3.001 to 3.02) without FCOIs (P < .001). Omitting publish-only abstracts, PRS was 2.62 (95% CI, 2.61 to 2.63) with FCOIs compared with 2.73 without FCOIs (95% CI, 2.71 to 2.73).

CONCLUSION

Abstracts with FCOIs had more prominent meeting placement and better PRSs. FCOIs were reported more frequently by year, suggesting an increasing influence of industry on cancer research, greater disclosure, or both.

Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review

BACKGROUND

Expenditure on industry products (mostly drugs and devices) has spiraled over the last 15 years and accounts for substantial part of healthcare expenditure. The enormous financial interests involved in the development and marketing of drugs and devices may have given excessive power to these industries to influence medical research, policy, and practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review of the literature and analysis of the multiple pathways through which the industry has directly or indirectly infiltrated the broader healthcare systems. We present the analysis of the industry influences at the following levels: (i) evidence base production, (ii) evidence synthesis, (iii) understanding of safety and harms issues, (iv) cost-effectiveness evaluation, (v) clinical practice guidelines formation, (vi) healthcare professional education, (vii) healthcare practice, (viii) healthcare consumer's decisions.

RESULTS

We located abundance of consistent evidence demonstrating that the industry has created means to intervene in all steps of the processes that determine healthcare research, strategy, expenditure, practice and education. As a result of these interferences, the benefits of drugs and other products are often exaggerated and their potential harms are downplayed, and clinical guidelines, medical practice, and healthcare expenditure decisions are biased.

CONCLUSION

To serve its interests, the industry masterfully influences evidence base production, evidence synthesis, understanding of harms issues, cost-effectiveness evaluations, clinical practice guidelines and healthcare professional education and also exerts direct influences on professional decisions and health consumers. There is an urgent need for regulation and other action towards redefining the mission of medicine towards a more objective and patient-, population- and society-benefit direction that is free from conflict of interests.

Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications

Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of "seeding" trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it's not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

[Technology or technolatry: where are surgeons going?]

Innovative pressure forms part of the current technical-scientific utopia and equally affects surgeons, patients, communication media, and the health industry. It has brought a new type of technical adventurism with its accompanying iatrogenesis, which involves unnecessary risks. Personal ambitions, industrial persuasion and the promotion of hospital brands, both public and private, have weakened values and professional ethics in an environment in which technology is losing cost/benefit, and the conflict of interests have aroused many suspicions. A critical review of the technolatry culture is presented as well as a sober assessment of the costs of our interventions, not only in the economic sphere, but also as regards the safety of our patients, the environmental sustainability, and the most efficient use of health care devices.

Conflicts of interest and your physician: psychological processes that cause unexpected changes in behavior

The ubiquitous nature of medical conflicts of interest is attracting increased attention from physicians, policymakers, and patients. However, little work has examined the psychological processes at play in the presence of such conflicts. I investigate the subtle influences arising from conflicts of interest that change behavior in both physicians and patients. First, I explore why physicians accept gifts from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers that appear, to many critics, to be unethical. I review evidence from my published and ongoing research that demonstrates two psychological processes that enable physicians to accept industry gifts: (a) a sense of entitlement and (b) a sense of invulnerability to the biasing effects of conflicts of interest. Second, I investigate the situations that may increase or decrease bias. I find that people, subject to a financial conflict of interest, show greater bias in their advice when they feel less able to identify with the advice-recipient(s). This, perversely, leads to advisors giving more biased advice to groups of people than to one identified individual. Finally, I examine the impact of the conflicted advice on the patient and the success of policies intended to manage such conflicts. Mandatory second opinions and disclosure are often advocated as potential solutions to deal with conflicts of interest. However, both policies have limitations and can sometimes make matters worse. A primary advisor who knows about a second advisor may give even more biased advice since the presence of a second advisor undermines the relationship with the primary advisor. Also, although disclosure of a conflict of interest does have the intended effect of causing patients to trust the advice they receive less, I find that it also has an additional unintended consequence: it creates increased pressure to comply with the (distrusted) advice. This increased pressure occurs because patients want to avoid appearing as though they believe that the (now disclosed) conflict of interest has corrupted their doctors' advice. Thus, instead of being merely a warning, disclosure can become a burdensome request to comply with advice the patient trusts less. These results highlight potential pitfalls that new policies intended to address conflicts of interest should seek to avoid.

Relationships between medicine and industry: approaches to the problem of conflicts of interest

Relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent in medical education, clinical practice, and research, as well as at the level of medical institutions. These relationships can be valuable for the advancement of medicine but have also received increased scrutiny in recent years because they create conflicts of interest that pose a risk of biasing the judgments of physicians. Responses to these conflicts of interest by medical institutions, journals, and governments have utilized four main tools: education, disclosure, management, and prohibition. Each of the four has its advantages and drawbacks. Medicine faces the challenge of tailoring the use of these tools to minimize the risk of bias while allowing useful medical-industry collaborations to proceed. Viewing the dilemmas created by physicians' relationships with industry as a version of the principal-agent problem, which is much discussed by economists, may help in developing creative approaches to these issues.

Ethics and technology transfer: patients, patents, and public trust

Universities and academic medical centers have been increasing their focus on technology transfer and research commercialization. With this shift in focus, academic-industry ties have become prevalent. These relationships can benefit academic researchers and help then to transform their research into tangible societal benefits. However, there also are concerns that these ties and the greater academic focus on commercialization might lead to conflicts of interest, especially financial conflicts of interest. This paper briefly explores some of these conflicts of interest, particularly relating to research and training. This paper also discusses some of the policies that have been, and are being, developed to try to mitigate and manage these conflicts so that academic involvement in technology transfer and commercialization can continue without jeopardizing academic work or the public's trust in them.

Participation of academic scientists in relationships with industry

Relationships between academic researchers and industry have received considerable attention in the past twenty years. However, current data on the prevalence, magnitude, and trends in such relationships are rare. In a mailed survey of 3,080 academic life science researchers conducted in 2007, we found that 52.8 percent have some form of relationship with industry. Life science faculty with industry research support were more productive than faculty without such support on virtually every measure. However, we also found a significant decrease in industry support of university research, which could have major consequences for the academic life science research sector.

Conflicts of interest in human subjects research: special considerations for academic emergency physicians

Trust in the doctor-patient or investigator-subject relationship is vital to the practice of medicine and advancement through biomedical research. Individual and environmental factors can make this trust more difficult to establish in the emergency department (ED). To perform research ethically and maintain this trust, it is important to minimize and manage conflicts of interest in human subjects research. While principle-based ethics are an important starting point, the virtue of the individual investigator is required to assure that the interests and safety of research participants are prioritized over the interests of the investigator or the medical community at large. SAEM Ethics Committee 2009-2010 Objective 4: "Based on the results of the didactic session presented at the annual meeting, develop a guide to assist SAEM members in the recognition of potential conflicts of interest in the practice of academic emergency medicine".