RoseM. Activism in the 90s: Changing roles for public relations. Public Relations Quarterly1991; 36(3):28–32.
2.
RothenbergR. The age of spin. Esquire1996 Dec:71.
3.
HannersD. Scientists were paid to write letters: Tobacco industry sought to discredit EPA report. St. Louis Pioneer Dispatch1998 Aug 4.
4.
OrnsteinC. Fen-phen maker accused of funding journal articles. Dallas Morning News1999 May 23; Sect A:1.
5.
Authors'correspondence with Norman Bauman. See also: Bauman N. Medical writers get $300-$700/day working for drug companies. 1991 Apr 1 [cited 2001 Dec 12]. Available from: URL: http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/ghost.htm as well as Burton R. Selling drugs—with a little help from a journalist. British Medical Journal 2001; 323:1258.
6.
BellR. Impure science: Fraud, compromise and political influence in scientific research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1992. p. 190–219.
7.
MossmanBTGeeJB. Asbestos-related diseases. New Engl J Med1989; 320:1721–30. For a detailed critique of this incident, see BrodeurPRavanesiB. Old tricks. The Networker (newsletter of the Science and Environmental Health Network); 1998 Jun.
8.
For NEJM's response to the controversy over this incident, see AngellMKassirerJP. Editorials and Conflicts of Interest. New Engl J Med1996; 335:1055–6. For the researchers’ side, see MansonJE. Adventures in scientific discourse. Epidemiology1997;8:324–7.
9.
BerkeJH. Living downstream. New Engl J Med1997; 337:1562.
10.
Medical journal apologizes for ethics blunder. Washington Post1997 Dec 28.
11.
KrimskySRothenbergLSStottPKyleG. Scientific journals and their authors’ financial interests: A pilot study. Psychother Psychosom1998; 67(4–5):194–201.
12.
KingRT, Medical journals rarely disclose researchers’ ties, drawing ire. Wall Street Journal1999 Feb 2. See also KrimskyS.Will disclosure of financial interests brighten the image of entrepreneurial science?BoydCJ, editor. 1999 AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exposition: Challenges for a New Century. Abstract A-29. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
13.
BeroLAGalbraithARennieD. The publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals. New Engl J Med1992; 327:1135–40.
14.
RamptonSStauberJ. Trust us, we're experts: How industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Tarcher/Putnam; 2001. p. 204–15.
15.
U.S. expenditures for research and development by source of funds and performer. Wall Street Journal Almanac1999. New York: Ballantine Books; 1998. p. 363.
RobinsonMB. Medical school faculty say budget cuts are hurting teaching. Associated Press; 1999 May 19.
18.
Collaborations between business and academia are mediated by groups such as the Business-Higher Education Forum, a partnership of the American Council on Education and the National Alliance of Business, as well as the Government-University-Industry Research Round-table (GUIRR), established in 1984 and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, in order to “convene senior-most representatives from government, universities, and industry to define and explore critical issues related to the national science and technology agenda.” For examples of some of these collaborations, see PressEWashburnJ. The kept university. Atlantic; 2000 March.
BlumenthalDCampbellEGAndersonMSCausinoNLouisKS. Withholding research results in academic life science. JAMA1997; 277:1224–8.
21.
BenowitzS. Is corporate research funding leading to secrecy in science?The Scientist1996; 10:1, 6–7.
22.
RennieD. Thyroid storm. JAMA1997; 277:1242.
23.
ShenkD. Money + science = ethics problems on campus. The Nation1999; 22 Mar:11–12.
24.
ThompsonJBairdPDownieJ. Report of the committee of inquiry on the case involving Dr. Nancy Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto, and Apotex, Inc.Canadian Association of University Teachers, 2001 [cited 2001 Dec 10]. Available from: URL: http://www.caut.ca/english/issues/acadfreedom/olivieri.asp
25.
HotzRL. Secrecy is often the price of medical research funding. Los Angeles Times1999 May 18; Sect. A:1.
26.
KnoxRA. Disclosure fight may push doctor out of occupational health field. Boston Globe1999 May 22; Sect. B:5.
27.
Special report: what happens when universities become businesses? Research Corporation Annual Report, 1997. p. 9.
28.
RochonPAGurwitzJHSimmsRWFortinPRFelsonDTMinakerKL, A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Int Med1994; 154:157–63. The study looked at all randomized control trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used in the treatment of arthritis, based on a MEDLINE search between the dates of September 1987 and May 1990 “Researchers, ‘blinded’ to manufacturer status, evaluated the narrative interpretation of results and extracted numeric data on efficacy and toxicity.” For both efficacy and toxicity, the question of whether trial data supported the study's conclusions was answered by defining “adequate documentation as being the reporting of a test of statistical significance (p≤0.05) for one or more comparisons.”
29.
ChoMKBeroLA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Int Med1996; 124:485–9.
30.
StelfoxHTChuaGO'RourkeKDetskyAS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. New Engl J Med1998; 338:101–6.
31.
FriedbergMSaffranBStinsonTJNelsonWBennettCL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA1999; 282:1453–7.
32.
FaginDLavelleM. Toxic deception. Secaucus (NJ): Birch Lane Press; 1996. p. 51–2.
33.
Journals fail to adhere to guidelines on conflicts of interest. BMJ2001; 323:651.