Skip to main content

Funding and Bias

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 527 Accesses

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Snyder KA, Blank MP, Marsolek CJ. What form of memory underlies novelty preferences? Psychon Bull Rev. 2008;15(2):315–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Montaner JS, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet. 2001;358(9296):1893–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grants & Funding. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2016. http://www.nih.gov/grants-funding Accessed 24 Mar 2016.

  7. 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.

  8. Chopra SS. Industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias? Jama. 2003;290(1):113–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schwarz RP. Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(6):753–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

  11. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1539–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Angell M. Is academic medicine for sale? Quaderns de la Fundació Dr. Antoni Esteve. 2012(24):59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Glascoff DW. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact and implications. Mark Health Serv. 2000;20(1):38.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niiler E. Company, academics argue over data. Nat Biotechnol. 2000;18(12):1235.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Davidson RA. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med. 1986;1(3):155–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sismondo S. Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2008;29(2):109–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy CM. Skepticism toward medical care and health care utilization. Med Care. 1998;36(2):180–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy CM, Doescher MP, Banthin JS. Does skepticism towards medical care predict mortality? Med Care. 1999;37(4):409–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwitzer G. How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Medical researchers and the media: attitudes toward public dissemination of research. Jama. 1992;268(8):999–1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina A. Di Bartolo .

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics