MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W227965805

Monitoring Contracts with Industry: Why Research Ethics Boards Must Be Involved

2003· article· en· W227965805 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jennifer Gold, Michelle S. Laxer, Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationResearch ethicsAccountingInstitutionPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceLawEngineering ethicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Industry-university collaboration is an increasingly common phenomenon in Canada. A recent study on university-industry partnerships in this country indicated that the amount of research funded by private companies jumped from 2% in 1976 to 13% in 1996. (1) Critics have raised concerns that such research may have an underlying bias in favour of its sponsors. (2) To compound the problem, institutional research ethics boards (REBs) are often not privy to contracts negotiated between the institution and the industry sponsor. (3) Such contracts may contain ethically questionable clauses, and it is therefore imperative that REBs be able to view them before deciding whether a given research protocol is deserving of ethics approval. Without access to contracts and related documentation, an REB is precluded from making an educated decision on the matter. This could result in research proceeding that is unethical in nature, putting subjects at risk. It may further result in publication restrictions and other constraints on the investigator, jeopardizing the scientific integrity of the research. REBs and the Regulation of Research in Canada There is no single regulatory regime that governs research conduct in Canada. Most research is regulated indirectly through requirements of the three major federal funding agencies (CIHR, SSHRC, and NSERC). The Tri-Council Policy Statement, which governs federally funded research, requires that all research be approved by a local REB before investigators can proceed. (4) However, not being federal public entities, pharmaceutical companies and thus industry-sponsored research are not subject to the Tri-Council guidelines. While most academic institutions have in place requirements for REB approval of all research, the lack of official and formal regulation of ethics review by the Canadian government renders the situation somewhat murky in terms of what is, and is not, acceptable. Research ethics boards are generally composed of individuals from different areas of expertise. Most include a lawyer; an ethics expert; at least one person with expertise in the research area under review; and a member of the community unaffiliated with the institution. (5) The mandate of REBs is to scrutinize research protocols and related documents (e.g., consent forms) for ethical acceptability. Protocols that are deemed unacceptable must be resubmitted with the necessary changes made. Several principles should guide REBs in making their decisions. These include the respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (6) REB members must closely examine submitted protocols for such things as improper informed consent, deception, unnecessary exposures to risk, and any other harms that could be incurred by participating subjects. The purpose of such ethical scrutiny is primarily to protect subjects from injury or harm of the kind suffered by human research subjects in such notorious historical events as human experimentation by the Nazis, or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Research Contracts: A Cause for Concern? A research contract is an agreement by a host institution to conduct research on behalf of a company in exchange for the payment of all related costs. (7) The terms of the contract dictate how the research will be carried out. Research contracts are currently not standardized. There is therefore no universal contract that is acceptable to all parties. This lack of standards is problematic, since it could translate into a discrepancy in practice even between different sites in the same industry-sponsored multicentre trial. Further, unlike peer-reviewed grants from public funding agencies like CIHR, industry-sponsored research contracts are generally initiated by pharmaceutical companies and are therefore necessarily profit-motivated. Good scholarship and scientific integrity may be secondary to this goal. As well, investigators contracting with industry may stand to profit from their involvement with the company. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.511
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.632
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5110.632
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0230.046
Scholarly communication0.0270.021
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0270.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.872
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207