Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Rohit Sharma Commercial interests are posing such an increasing threat to the
integrity of clinical trials necessary for developing new drugs that
new regulations are needed to safeguard them from corruption, according
to Dr Jonathan Quick, director of essential drugs and medical policy at
the World Health Organization.
In an editorial in the current Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, Dr Quick says "researchers who publish or
communicate results unfriendly to the sponsors have faced intimidation,
attempts to discredit them professionally, and legal threats to recover `lost sales.'"
"If clinical trials become a commercial venture, self-interest
overrules public interest and desire overrules science, then the social
contract which allows research on human subjects in return for medical
advances is broken," said Dr Quick.
Dr Quick suggested drawing up a declaration on the rights and
obligations of clinical investigators and on how to manage the entire
clinical trials evidence base, along the lines of the Helsinki Declaration adopted in 1964 by the World Medical Association to protect
human subjects in medical research.
This could supplement the proposal from the editors of 13 medical
journals in September 2001, he said. The proposal suggested that
sponsors should guarantee the intellectual independence of investigators, trial details should be entered in a registry available to third parties, and legal action could be taken against investigators only where fraud was suspected.
Meanwhile the UK Association of University Teachers wants an
independent commission set up to ensure that commercial companies cannot interfere with academics' research. It describes Nottingham University's decision to accept £3.8m ($5.3m;
6.3m) from British American Tobacco as "the worst decision of the year."
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+