http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/ en-us Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:00:00 GMT Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:45:29 GMT Silverchair editor@archpsyc.jamanetwork.com webmaster@archpsyc.jamanetwork.com http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=668220 Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:00:00 GMT Coyle JT, Heckers S. <span class="paragraphSection">The issue of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research and scientific publishing has been a thorny one with which <span style="font-style:italic;">JAMA</span>, the A<span style="text-transform:lowercase;font-variant:small-caps;">rchives</span>, and academic medicine have wrestled for nearly 2 decades. Pharmaceutical, biotech, and, increasingly, medical device companies make major investments in sponsoring research in medical schools and pay for consultations with basic scientists and clinical investigators from academic medicine because of the expertise that they can bring to bear on therapeutic innovation. Many of the advances in the treatment of cancer, heart disease, and infectious disease are the fruits of these highly productive relationships. However, financial relationships between medical faculty and industry may not be obvious, unlike the identification of an individual as an employee of a particular company. Such financial relationships include participation in industry-sponsored clinical trials, membership on scientific advisory boards, stock or stock option ownership, consulting, and participation in “speaker bureaus.”</span> 63 11 1178 1178 10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1178 http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=668220