I would submit the most of the "dodgy" research, and the most influential "dodgy research, was clinical research sponsored by health care corporations whose products or services were ostensibly evaluated by the research, and was done by researchers with financial relationships with those corporations, and often at institutions which also had financial relationships with these corporations.

Furthermore, in my humble opinion, manipulation or suppression of research to support such vested interests violates the trust of research subjects who volunteer ostensibly to advance science and medicine.

So the simple proposals are 1) to ban corporations who sell drugs, devices, or other health care products or services from supporting or other direct involvement in human research meant to evaluate those drugs, devices, products or services; 2) to ban investigators who have financial relationships with particular corporations from participating in human research meant to evaluate those corporations' products; and 3) to ban institutions with financial relationships with particular corporations from participating in human research meant to evaluate those corporations' products.

Here in the US, the Institute of Medicine's2009 report on conflicts of interest recommends "academic medical centers and other research institutions should establish a policy that individuals generally may not conduct research with human participants if they have a significant financial interest in an existing or potential product or ac company that could be affected by the outcome of the research."  (See link here:http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Conflict-of-Interest-in-Medical-Research-Education-and-Practice.aspx   )  However, I don't know of any efforts to implement that recommendation.

Obviously, my proposal and this recommendation would not find favor with individuals who benefit from the current system.

PS - Does anyone have links to the presentations at the meeting about the "dodgy" research?   

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi All,

 

I've just come back from the very good Evidence 2010 conference.  I came away with lots of themes buzzing around in my head, but a few nicely sit together:

 

• There is too much research being pushed out, clinicians can't keep up to date.
• Much of the research is 'dodgy' (e.g. pharma involvement, not long enough, dubious outcomes, not patient focused etc)

The solution seems to be to stop the bloat of papers and do much less research that is better focused and has better outcomes and run for long enough.  The phrase 'less is more' springs to mind!  However, this solution seems to conflict with another strong theme from the conference - conflicts of interest in academia.  Suggesting doing less research to academics appears to be similar to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

 

Is the solution to do less (but better) research or am I missing something?  Also, given that this is ostensibly an academic list does the notion of academia being a problem/conflicted in EBM/EBHC meet with approval or horror?  I appreciate I'm open to accusations of naivety (it hardly be the first time) but it the theme of academic conflicts was strong and came from multiple people (way more prominent than me)!

 

Best wishes

 

jon

 

Jon Brassey

TRIP Database

www.tripdatabase.com

 

 

 

--
Roy M. Poses MD
Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine
Alpert Medical School, Brown University
[log in to unmask]