Abstract
This chapter reviews the implicit and explicit biases that emerge throughout the chain from researcher to patient. Conducting research studies and disseminating their results is a costly and time-consuming endeavor at every stage in the process, regardless of the funding source. Scientists devote years to advanced education, applying for grants, conducting studies, and writing their results. The pharmaceutical industry spends exorbitant sums of money conducting clinical trials with the sole aim of gathering sufficient data to obtain FDA approval. Editors of scientific journals prefer publishing studies with novel results and disproportionally reject studies with statistically insignificant results, resulting in publication bias. The media strives to inform the public of scientific developments while appeasing their advertisers’ needs for the most clicks, page views, and “likes,” often resulting in scientific journalism overstating conclusions regarding an otherwise precise and cautious process. While the research process is overwhelmingly not maliciously manipulated, the investments of so many interested parties must introduce even implicit elements of bias into the proceedings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Kapp MB. Patient autonomy in the age of consumer-driven health care: informed consent and informed choice. J Legal Med. 2007;28(1):91–117.
Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan; 2011.
Snyder KA, Blank MP, Marsolek CJ. What form of memory underlies novelty preferences? Psychon Bull Rev. 2008;15(2):315–21.
Montaner JS, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet. 2001;358(9296):1893–5.
Miller DT, Ratner RK. The power of the myth of self-interest. In current societal concerns about justice. US: Springer; 1996. p. 25–48.
Grants & Funding. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2016. http://www.nih.gov/grants-funding Accessed 24 Mar 2016.
FAQs | NIH Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs. Sbir.nih.gov. 2016. https://sbir.nih.gov/faqs#intellectual-property-req1 Accessed 24 Mar 2016.
Chopra SS. Industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias? Jama. 2003;290(1):113–4.
Schwarz RP. Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(6):753–60.
Swanson A. Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research. Washington Post. 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ Accessed 23 Mar 2016.
Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1539–44.
Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? Quaderns de la Fundació Dr. Antoni Esteve. 2012(24):59–62.
Glascoff DW. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact and implications. Mark Health Serv. 2000;20(1):38.
Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356(9230):635–8.
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(2):157–63.
ICMJE | Recommendations| Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. Icmje.org. 2016. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html Accessed 23 Mar 2016.
Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, Lundberg GD, Rennie D. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Jama. 1998;280(3):222–4.
Niiler E. Company, academics argue over data. Nat Biotechnol. 2000;18(12):1235.
Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(3):155–8.
Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(2):109–13.
Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Moore DA. The dirt on coming clean: perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Legal Stud. 2005;34(1):1–25.
Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet V, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J. A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1119–27.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. Br Med J. 2003;326(7400):1167–70.
Szykman LR. Who are you and why are you being nice?: Investigating the industry effect on consumer reaction to corporate societal marketing efforts. Adv CONSUM RES. 2004;31:306–13.
Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy CM. Skepticism toward medical care and health care utilization. Med Care. 1998;36(2):180–9.
Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy CM, Doescher MP, Banthin JS. Does skepticism towards medical care predict mortality? Med Care. 1999;37(4):409–14.
DeLorme DE, Huh J, Reid LN. Direct-to-consumer advertising skepticism and the use and perceived usefulness of prescription drug information sources. Health Mark Q. 2009;26(4):293–314.
Smith DE, Wilson AJ, Henry DA. Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: early experience with media doctor. Med J Aust. 2005;183(4):190.
Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e95.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ. Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):613–8.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Kramer BS. Promoting healthy skepticism in the news: helping journalists get it right. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1596–9.
Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Medical researchers and the media: attitudes toward public dissemination of research. Jama. 1992;268(8):999–1003.
Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC. Untangling the web—the impact of internet use on health care and the physician–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(3):218–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Di Bartolo, C.A., Braun, M.K. (2017). Funding and Bias. In: Pediatrician's Guide to Discussing Research with Patients. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49547-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49547-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-49546-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-49547-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)