FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 334:368-374 February 8, 1996 Number 6 Next

	Full Text PDF Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

ABSTRACT

Background Despite growing acceptance of relationships between academia and industry in the life sciences, systematic, up-to-date information about their extent and the consequences for the parties involved remains scarce. We attempted to collect information about the prevalence, magnitude, commercial benefits, and potential risks of such relationships by surveying a representative sample of life-science companies in the United States to determine their relationships with academic institutions.

Methods We collected data by telephone from May through September 1994 from senior executives of 210 life-science companies (of 306 companies surveyed; response rate, 69 percent). The sample contained all Fortune 500 companies in the fields of agriculture, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals; all international pharmaceutical companies with sales volumes similar to those of the Fortune 500 companies; and a random sample of non–Fortune 500 companies in the life sciences drawn from multiple commercial and noncommercial directories. Both the survey instrument and the survey methods resembled those of our 1984 study of 106 biotechnology companies, allowing us to assess the evolution of relationships between academia and industry over the past decade.

Results Ninety percent of companies conducting life-science research in the United States had relationships involving the life sciences with an academic institution in 1994. Fifty-nine percent supported research in such institutions, providing an estimated $1.5 billion, or approximately 11.7 percent of all research-and-development funding received that year. The agreements with universities tended to be short-term and to involve small amounts, implying that most such relationships supported applied research or development. Over 60 percent of companies providing support for life-science research in universities had received patents, products, and sales as a result of those relationships. At the same time, the companies reported that their relationships with universities often included agreements to keep the results of research secret beyond the time needed to file a patent. From 1984 to 1994, the involvement of industry with academic institutions has increased, but the characteristics of the relationships have remained remarkably stable.

Conclusions After more than a decade of sustained interaction, universities and industries seem to have formed durable partnerships in the life sciences, although the relationships may pose greater threats to the openness of scientific communication than universities generally acknowledge. However, industrial support for university research is much smaller in amount than federal support, and companies are unlikely to be able to compensate for sizable federal cutbacks.

Source Information

From the Health Policy Research and Development Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (D.B., N.C., E.C.); the Departments of Medicine (D.B., N.C.) and Health Care Policy (D.B.), Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the College of Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (K.S.L.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Blumenthal at the Medical Practices Evaluation Center, 50 Staniford St., Boston, MA 02114.

Full Text of this Article

Related Letters:

Secrecy in Research
Goodman N. W., Burris J. F., Tracy C. L., Lu B., Rosenberg S. A.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1996; 335:134-136, Jul 11, 1996. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Azoulay, P., Michigan, R., Sampat, B. N. (2007). The Anatomy of Medical School Patenting. NEJM 357: 2049-2056 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Claxton, L. (2007). A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists.. Toxicol Ind Health 23: 557-571 [Abstract]  
• Riechelmann, R. P., Wang, L., O'Carroll, A., Krzyzanowska, M. K. (2007). Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Clinical Trials and Editorials in Oncology. JCO 25: 4642-4647 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fabrizio, K. R. (2007). University patenting and the pace of industrial innovation. Ind Corp Change 16: 505-534 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Campbell, E. G., Gruen, R. L., Mountford, J., Miller, L. G., Cleary, P. D., Blumenthal, D. (2007). A National Survey of Physician-Industry Relationships. NEJM 356: 1742-1750 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jacobs, J. J., Galante, J. O., Mirza, S. K., Zdeblick, T. (2006). Symposium. Relationships with Industry: Critical for New Technology or an Unnecessary Evil?. JBJS 88: 1650-1663 [Full Text]  
• Sharp, R. R., Yarborough, M. (2006). Informed Trust and the Financing of Biomedical Research. J Law Med Ethics 34: 460-464  
• Perlis, R. H., Perlis, C. S., Wu, Y., Hwang, C., Joseph, M., Nierenberg, A. A. (2005). Industry Sponsorship and Financial Conflict of Interest in the Reporting of Clinical Trials in Psychiatry. Am. J. Psychiatry 162: 1957-1960 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lexchin, J. R (2005). Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding on Clinical Research. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 39: 194-197 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Helft, P. R., Ratain, M. J., Epstein, R. A., Siegler, M. (2004). Inside Information: Financial Conflicts of Interest for Research Subjects in Early Phase Clinical Trials. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 96: 656-661 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Boyd, E. A., Lipton, S., Bero, L. A. (2004). Implementation Of Financial Disclosure Policies To Manage Conflicts Of Interest. Health Aff (Millwood) 23: 206-214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zuckerman, J. D., Prasarn, M., Kubiak, E. N., Koval, K. J. (2004). Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research. JBJS 86: 423-428 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Faunce, T, Bolsin, S, Chan, W-P (2004). Supporting whistleblowers in academic medicine: training and respecting the courage of professional conscience. J. Med. Ethics 30: 40-43 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kim, S Y H, Millard, R W, Nisbet, P, Cox, C, Caine, E D (2004). Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J. Med. Ethics 30: 73-79 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Campbell, E. G., Powers, J. B., Blumenthal, D., Biles, B. (2004). Inside the Triple Helix: Technology Transfer And Commercialization In The Life Sciences. Health Aff (Millwood) 23: 64-76 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Blumenthal, D. (2003). Academic-Industrial Relationships in the Life Sciences. NEJM 349: 2452-2459 [Full Text]  
• Johns, M. M. E., Barnes, M., Florencio, P. S. (2003). Restoring Balance to Industry-Academia Relationships in an Era of Institutional Financial Conflicts of Interest: Promoting Research While Maintaining Trust. JAMA 289: 741-746 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review. JAMA 289: 454-465 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Rosenstock, L., Lee, L. J. (2002). Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy. Am. J. Public Health 92: 14-18 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Agrawal, A., Henderson, R. (2002). Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT. Management Science 48: 44-60 [Abstract]  
• DeAngelis, C. D., Fontanarosa, P. B., Flanagin, A. (2001). Reporting Financial Conflicts of Interest and Relationships Between Investigators and Research Sponsors. JAMA 286: 89-91 [Full Text]  
• Kneller, R. (2001). Technology Transfer: A Review for Biomedical Researchers. Clin. Cancer Res. 7: 761-774 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Roberts, L. W., Bogenschutz, M. P. (2001). Preparing the Next Generation of Psychiatric Researchers: A Story of Obstacles and Optimism. Acad. Psychiatry 25: 4-8 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Boyd, E. A., Bero, L. A. (2000). Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships With Industry: A Case Study. JAMA 284: 2209-2214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bero, L. A. (1998). Disclosure Policies for Gifts From Industry to Academic Faculty. JAMA 279: 1031-1032 [Full Text]  
• Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S. (1997). The Social Missions of Academic Health Centers. NEJM 337: 1550-1553 [Full Text]  
• Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., Louis, K. S. (1996). Participation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry. NEJM 335: 1734-1739 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Goodman, N. W., Burris, J. F., Tracy, C. L., Lu, B., Rosenberg, S. A. (1996). Secrecy in Research. NEJM 335: 134-136 [Full Text]  
• Rosenberg, S. A. (1996). Secrecy in Medical Research. NEJM 334: 392-394 [Full Text]