权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Industry-Sponsored Research Contracts:..Phase II

行业资助的研究合同：..第二阶段

基本信息

批准号：
6801155
负责人：
Michelle Marie Mello
金额：
$ 9.55万
依托单位：
HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
依托单位国家：
美国
项目类别：
财政年份：
2003
资助国家：
美国
起止时间：
2003-09-15 至 2006-05-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/6801155
关键词：
administrative personnel behavioral /social science research tag clinical research clinical trials data collection methodology /evaluation ethics health care policy health economics health science research analysis /evaluation human subject industry organized financing population survey psychological values

项目摘要

DESCRIPTION (provided by the applicant): This application requests funding to administer two surveys on ethical norms, policies, and practices concerning the allocation of control over various aspects of industry-funded clinical trials between academic investigators and sponsors. The development of the survey instruments was funded under the 2001 RFA on "Research on Research Integrity." Industry funding has become an indispensable part of biomedical research, accounting for 70% of the funding for clinical drug trials in the U.S. While academic-industry research partnerships carry great benefits, the terms of the contracts between academic institutions and sponsors pose a possible threat to research integrity if they restrict investigators' academic freedom. There exists little empirical data on the nature and consequences of these legal relationships. This study explores five research questions: (1) To what extent do faculty investigators and institutional research administrators view it as acceptable or unacceptable to cede control over various aspects of clinical trials to industry sponsors? (2) Do norms regarding acceptable sponsor controls vary among faculty investigators (by academic rank, percentage of research funding received from industry, and institutional size), or among research administrators (by institutional size and percentage of institutional research funding received from the industry)? (3) Do norms regarding acceptable sponsor controls differ between faculty investigators and research administrators? (4) What is the nature of tensions and conflicts arising from industry-sponsored clinical trials? (5) What institutional structures (such as formal policies and the use of legal counsel) are in place in academic medical centers to ensure the integrity of industry-sponsored clinical trials and prevent related conflicts? We hypothesize that the allocation of control over many aspects of clinical trials to industry sponsors will be seen as acceptable, but that large institutions, institutions with formal policies on industry-sponsored research, junior faculty, and faculty and institutions with little industry funding will be less likely than other faculty and institutions to view sponsor controls as acceptable. We further hypothesize that the ethical norms of some investigators will diverge from those of research administrators. These hypotheses will be tested through self-administered surveys of clinical faculty and research administrators at academic medical centers. Survey topics include institutional policies and procedures, the acceptability of specific types of sponsor controls, sources of tensions and conflicts between sponsors, investigators, and administrators, and perceived pressures in the research environment.

描述（由申请人提供）：本申请申请资金用于管理两项关于伦理规范、政策和实践的调查，这些调查涉及学术研究者和赞助者之间对行业资助的临床试验的各个方面的控制分配。这些调查工具的发展是在2001年“科研诚信研究”资助下进行的。产业资助已成为生物医学研究不可缺少的一部分，占美国临床药物试验经费的70%。虽然学术-产业研究合作伙伴关系带来了巨大的利益，但学术机构与赞助商之间的合同条款如果限制了研究人员的学术自由，可能会对研究诚信构成威胁。关于这些法律关系的性质和后果的经验数据很少。本研究探讨了五个研究问题：(1)教师研究者和机构研究管理者在多大程度上认为将临床试验的各个方面的控制权交给行业赞助商是可以接受的还是不可接受的？(2)关于可接受的资助者控制的规范是否在教师调查人员（按学术等级、从行业获得的研究经费百分比和机构规模）或研究管理人员（按机构规模和从行业获得的机构研究经费百分比）之间有所不同？(3)关于可接受的资助者控制的规范在教员调查人员和研究管理人员之间是否有所不同？(4)行业资助的临床试验产生的紧张和冲突的性质是什么？(5)学术医疗中心有什么样的制度结构（如正式政策和法律顾问的使用）来确保行业资助的临床试验的完整性并防止相关冲突？我们假设，将临床试验的许多方面的控制权分配给行业赞助商将被视为可接受的，但大型机构、对行业赞助研究有正式政策的机构、初级教师、以及行业资助较少的教师和机构将比其他教师和机构更不可能认为赞助商控制是可接受的。我们进一步假设，一些研究者的道德规范将偏离研究管理者的道德规范。这些假设将通过学术医疗中心的临床教师和研究管理人员的自我调查来检验。调查主题包括机构政策和程序，特定类型的赞助者控制的可接受性，赞助者、研究者和管理者之间的紧张和冲突的来源，以及研究环境中的感知压力。