IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i5p643-647.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Lexchin, Joel
  • O'Donovan, Orla

Abstract

In light of debates about the relationship between interests and scientific expert judgments, and the potential for declarations of conflict of interest (COI) to minimize corporate bias, we reviewed the approach to COI in 3 European drug regulatory bodies. These bodies were the Irish Medicines Board, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom and the European Medicines Agency in the European Union. Official statements about COI laws and codes of practice in the 3 contexts suggest that COIs are prohibited. In practice, the approaches to COI in the 3 drug regulatory agencies presuppose and promote the ideas that COIs cannot and need not be eliminated as the risk of bias can be managed. Because the evidence about if and how COI affects micro-level decision-making in drug regulatory authorities is neither complete nor comprehensive, we advocate a precautionary principle model. Under this model COI would be prohibited on the grounds that it might influence the outcome of regulatory decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Lexchin, Joel & O'Donovan, Orla, 2010. "Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 643-647, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:5:p:643-647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00584-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa Bero & Fieke Oostvogel & Peter Bacchetti & Kirby Lee, 2007. "Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-10, June.
    2. Sismondo, Sergio, 2008. "How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1909-1914, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    2. Ozieranski, Piotr & McKee, Martin & King, Lawrence, 2012. "The politics of health technology assessment in Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 178-193.
    3. Padamsee, Tasleem Juana, 2011. "The pharmaceutical corporation and the 'good work' of managing women's bodies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1342-1350, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S Scott Graham & Zoltan P Majdik & Dave Clark & Molly M Kessler & Tristin Brynn Hooker, 2020. "Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    2. Gérard Mondello, 2020. "Building Belief Systems and Medical Ethics: The Covid-19 Controversies," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-35, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    3. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    4. Padamsee, Tasleem Juana, 2011. "The pharmaceutical corporation and the 'good work' of managing women's bodies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1342-1350, April.
    5. Elise M. R. Smith & Stephen Molldrem & Jeffrey S. Farroni & Emma Tumilty, 2024. "Articulating the social responsibilities of translational science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Antoine Popelut & Fabien Valet & Olivier Fromentin & Aurélie Thomas & Philippe Bouchard, 2010. "Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-9, April.
    7. Gabe, Jonathan & Chamberlain, Kerry & Norris, Pauline & Dew, Kevin & Madden, Helen & Hodgetts, Darrin, 2012. "The debate about the funding of Herceptin: A case study of ‘countervailing powers’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2353-2361.
    8. Unruh, Lynn & Rice, Thomas & Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt & Barnes, Andrew J., 2016. "The 2013 cholesterol guideline controversy: Would better evidence prevent pharmaceuticalization?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 797-808.
    9. Benhur Ruqsana, 2019. "The Impact of Source of Funding on the Outcome of Clinical Trials in India," Arthaniti: Journal of Economic Theory and Practice, , vol. 18(2), pages 201-216, December.
    10. Anna Lene Seidler & Kylie E Hunter & Nicholas Chartres & Lisa M Askie, 2019. "Associations between industry involvement and study characteristics at the time of trial registration in biomedical research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
    11. Ferrán Catalá-López & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Manuel Ridao & Salvador Peiró, 2013. "When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.
    12. Ozieranski, Piotr & McKee, Martin & King, Lawrence, 2012. "The politics of health technology assessment in Poland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 178-193.
    13. David Krauth & Andrew Anglemyer & Rose Philipps & Lisa Bero, 2014. "Nonindustry-Sponsored Preclinical Studies on Statins Yield Greater Efficacy Estimates Than Industry-Sponsored Studies: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, January.
    14. Ferrán Catalá-López & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Manuel Ridao & Máxima Bolaños & Anna García-Altés & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Salvador Peiró, 2012. "Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-9, May.
    15. Rima Nakkash & Ahmed Ali & Hala Alaouie & Khalil Asmar & Norbert Hirschhorn & Sanaa Mugharbil & Iman Nuwayhid & Leslie London & Amina Saban & Sabina Faiz Rashid & Md Koushik Ahmed & Cecile Knai & Char, 2020. "Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1133-1145, September.
    16. Naci, Huseyin & Cooper, Jacob & Mossialos, Elias, 2015. "Timely publication and sharing of trial data: opportunities and challenges for comparative effectiveness research in cardiovascular disease," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 63797, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Jared L. Peifer & David R. Johnson & Elaine Howard Ecklund, 2021. "Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 253-267, May.
    18. Barrios, John & Lancieri, Filippo Maria & Levy, Joshua & Singh, Shashank & Valletti, Tommaso M. & Zingales, Luigi, 2024. "The conflict-of-interest discount in the marketplace of ideas," Working Papers 348, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    19. Timmermans, Stefan & McKay, Tara, 2009. "Clinical trials as treatment option: Bioethics and health care disparities in substance dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1784-1790, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:5:p:643-647. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.