Participation of Academic Scientist in Relationships With Industry Shows Value in Relationship

 

A recent study published in the journal Health Affairs, titled “Participation of Academic Scientists in Relationships With Industry,” reported on assessment of industry relationships among academic scientists for four groups: departments of medicine, other clinical departments (nonmedicine), nonclinical life science departments, and genetics departments or programs.  The study was conducted by the staff of the Harvard Institute of Health Policy, and authors included anti industry critics David Blumenthal and Eric Campbell.

 

The data showed that over two thirds of clinical faculty has some type of involvement with industry and that those who had relationships with industry were significantly more productive than those who did not.

The authors of the report conducted a survey of these groups in 2006-07 that was mailed to about 3,080 researchers, at the 50 universities that received the most NIH research funding. The study was the third in a series of data collections, the first two of which were fielded in 1985 and 1995 regarding the frequency of industry-funded research support in the form of a grant or contract.

Results

The survey, which had a response rate of 74%, found that 52.8% of academic research faculty in the life sciences at top schools reported financial ties to industry over the past three years. The most common types of industry relationships involved consulting, paid-speaking, receiving research funding through a grant or contract as the principal investigator, and sitting on a scientific advisory board. About a third of the respondents said they had served as consultants, nearly a quarter said they had been paid speakers and 20% said they had received research funding from industry. That last figure is down from 28% of researchers who said they received research funding from industry in 1995.

Overall, life science faculty with industry research support were more productive than faculty without such support on virtually every measure. There was also evidence of a significant decrease in industry support of university research, which could have major consequences for the academic life science research sector.

 

Nonclinical departments were significantly more likely to be involved with industry in the early stages of product development, through the licensing of intellectual property and the founding and management of companies, than clinical departments.

 

Overall, industry supplied an average of $33,477 in research funds, excluding overhead, per respondent, representing 8.7 percent of all research funds received by faculty. Industrial funds constituted a significantly greater proportion of overall research support for clinical faculty members than for nonclinical faculty members (10.5 percent versus 2.5 percent). Industry funding was significantly higher within clinical departments than in nonclinical departments (47.3 percent versus 26.3 percent).

 

Nearly two-thirds of full professors maintained some form of relationship with industry, compared to a little over half of associate professors and 42.8 percent of assistant professors. Only 13.1 percent of respondents noted that industry support was to a “great extent,” while another 46.0 percent responded “some extent”

 

Faculty with industry relationships published significantly more and published at a greater rate in the past three years than respondents without such connections

 

Researchers with at least one industry relationship conducted more service activities in their institutions or disciplines than respondents without relationships

 

Academics with industry relationships spent significantly more hours per week performing outside professional activities such as giving external lectures, working with professional societies and advisory groups, and the associated travel with these activities

 

Faculty members who received modest industry support (one-third or less of their total research budgets) had the highest total number of publications, rates of publication in the previous three years, and number of service activities. Those with modest industry support also had the highest number of hours per week dedicated to research, while the number of hours was lowest for respondents with more than two-thirds of their funding from industry.

 

In comparison, the reason why faculty with substantial industry funding (two thirds or more) had lower numbers was because they are predominantly clinicians. As a result, these clinicians work solely on industry sponsored clinical trials, they spend much more time on patient care duties and less time on research tasks, and they have less time to publish or provide professional services.

 

The rate of faculty members using biotechnology tools who were principal investigators on research projects funded by industry dropped from 23 percent in 1985, to 21 percent in 1995 and 17 percent in 2007.

 

The total percentage of research budgets provided by industry to faculty members, was 7.4 percent in 1985, as compared with 5.8 percent in 1995 and 6.1 percent in 2007.

 

Overall, the proportion of faculty with industry funding dropped from 28 percent to 20 percent. Among those in clinical departments, the percentage decreased from 36 percent in 1996 to 23 percent in 2007. A similar decrease occurred among those in nonclinical departments (21 percent in 1996 versus 9 percent in 2007). Of the faculty with industry support, the median amount of industry funding in 2006 was $99,000—similar to the (Consumer Price Index–Medical adjusted) value of $91,500 in 1996.

 

Discussion

 

Although all of the results indicated from this study show that industry support is decreasing for both clinical and nonclinical departments, the authors still feel the need to call for “close scrutiny of researchers’ industry relationships.” Such a recommendation is unwarranted because it will only waste time and resources of agencies who already take too long to approve drugs and devices to help save lives. There is no need to scrutinize such relationships when respondents with only modest industry support were the most productive in all categories of work. In other words, the legal and ethical work such physicians took on from industry allowed them to have the resources and time to publish more articles on breakthroughs and participate in numerous services activities.

 

Another absurd conclusion claim from the study is the idea that “it is difficult, but not impossible, to find academic scientists without industry relationships to serve in advisory roles for organizations such as the Food and Drug Administration, the NIH, or the Institute of Medicine.” Patients and physicians need and demand the most senior academic faculty because of their vast knowledge and experience, especially when it includes work with industry. People making such calls are simply jealous of the success of such faculty, and would rather live with mediocrity then excellence.

 

In addition, the wishes of the authors that these relationships will raise serious concerns are completely misguided considering industry funding has dropped almost 10% over the past ten years, while payments have remained the same. The authors try to address this decrease by citing the doubling of NIH funding and the rise of university policies that may have impeded academic-industry relationships. If that is the case, then there should be no need for increased scrutiny, especially if the National Science Foundation suggests that industry support for academic research and development in all fields decreased from 7 percent in 1999 to its current level of 5 percent in 2003.

 

Such decreases can be accounted for by research that is being conducted oversea. As a result, the impact of such a reduction in industry funding could significantly hurt patients and medicine, especially since the study found that “those life science faculty with industry research support, compared to those without it, were more productive on virtually every measure of commercial and academic activities.”

 

Also, the notion that trade secrets are a problem because of industry support is also inappropriate because rates of trade secrecy for faculty without industry funding have more than doubled, from 3 percent in 1985 to 7.3 percent in 2006–07.

 

Ultimately, research relationships between industry and academia speed the translation of fundamental investigation into useful application, engaging the nation’s most energetic life science faculty to fulfill the public’s purposes in supporting biomedical research. Moreover, the involvement of the most productive faculty in industry-funded research should reassure the public that the most capable, trained and experienced professionals are providing the best outcomes for patients, without any risk of conflict.

 

If there is anything this study showed, it’s that modest amounts of industry funding allow physicians the flexibility to provide advanced services and participate in numerous activities that will benefit other physicians and patients. The fact that such funding is decreasing presently presents a risk for patients and physicians in having less education and experience for new treatments and medicine. It is critical that academic physicians are able to keep collaboration with industry, as this collaboration has lead to most of the major advances in medicine.  If in the name of political correctness we abandon those collaborations, in the end patients will suffer, and research will move overseas.