The Volokh Conspiracy - Conflicts of Interest in Science:

Medical researchers Thomas Stossel and David Shaywitz argue in the Washington Post that recent criticisms of supposed "conflicts of interest" in science have gone overboard, and may compromise continued progress in medical research.

Over the past two decades, private biotechnology firms and other drug companies have increasingly played a major role in cutting-edge medical research. These companies have built relationships with many of the best and brightest academic scientists, helping to bring about huge advances in medical treatment, including powerful new hormones and anti-cancer drugs as well as new devices that repair heart damage. But they have also drawn scrutiny from those who believe that, with so much money at stake, corruption must surely be present. Instead of assuming that scientists would want, above all, to protect their reputations and their research, critics have assumed the worst — and have underestimated the positive impact of relationships between university researchers and companies.

There is no question that some researchers may be influenced by their sources of funding. Research protocols may be altered to increase the likelihood that test results please private benefactors or generate government grants. But a given study or scientist's source of funding does not inherently taint research results. Over time, the scientific process weeds out those results that result from sloppiness or greed. Those who attack private funding of scientific and medical research have sought to don the public interest mantle, but if they are successful, we will all be worse off.

Medical care available to Americans is immensely better today than when we began our careers in medicine, in large measure because physicians have far superior technology at their disposal. And while much of the knowledge underlying these developments originated in universities, it was biotechnology firms and other companies that transformed this knowledge into the new drugs and devices that have proved so useful to the public. Little of this technology — be it vaccines for hepatitis, heart valves, or new anti-inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis — was developed by scholars and researchers without supposed conflicts of interest.

	[Jonathan Adler, July 10, 2006 at 9:54pm] Trackbacks Conflicts of Interest in Science: Medical researchers Thomas Stossel and David Shaywitz argue in the Washington Post that recent criticisms of supposed "conflicts of interest" in science have gone overboard, and may compromise continued progress in medical research. Over the past two decades, private biotechnology firms and other drug companies have increasingly played a major role in cutting-edge medical research. These companies have built relationships with many of the best and brightest academic scientists, helping to bring about huge advances in medical treatment, including powerful new hormones and anti-cancer drugs as well as new devices that repair heart damage. But they have also drawn scrutiny from those who believe that, with so much money at stake, corruption must surely be present. Instead of assuming that scientists would want, above all, to protect their reputations and their research, critics have assumed the worst — and have underestimated the positive impact of relationships between university researchers and companies. There is no question that some researchers may be influenced by their sources of funding. Research protocols may be altered to increase the likelihood that test results please private benefactors or generate government grants. But a given study or scientist's source of funding does not inherently taint research results. Over time, the scientific process weeds out those results that result from sloppiness or greed. Those who attack private funding of scientific and medical research have sought to don the public interest mantle, but if they are successful, we will all be worse off. Medical care available to Americans is immensely better today than when we began our careers in medicine, in large measure because physicians have far superior technology at their disposal. And while much of the knowledge underlying these developments originated in universities, it was biotechnology firms and other companies that transformed this knowledge into the new drugs and devices that have proved so useful to the public. Little of this technology — be it vaccines for hepatitis, heart valves, or new anti-inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis — was developed by scholars and researchers without supposed conflicts of interest.