advertisement
Editors Selection IGR 17-4
Objectivity of Science: Industry-funded trials can be accurate
Comment by George Spaeth on:
48123 Evaluation of investigator bias in industry-funded clinical trials of latanoprost, Jinapriya D; Anraku A; Alasbali T et al., Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, 2011; 46: 531-536
'He who pays the piper calls the tune.' Every person is able and in some situations, to be seduced ‐ seduced by money, fame, dreams of glory, sexual favors, or whatever else is important to that person's self-image. Some people can even be seduced by something that makes them feel certain that they are not being seduced.
Science is supposed to be objective. There is no such thing as total objectivity. It is self-delusion to think that we can measure something with perfect precision. To think that one is objective, or even that complete objectivity is possible is a type of self-deception.
There is a great deal of attention paid to the biasing influences of industry. Biases caused by a desire for fame or reputation are rarely mentioned, but are probably as or more important in causing biased measurements and invalid interpretations
The question, however, is not whether every measurement or conclusion is subjective due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that we are all susceptible to seduction. The issue is whether the effects of such subjectivity and bias can be reduced to a level where the outcomes approach validity, where they are at least reasonably accurate. There is a great deal of attention paid to the biasing influences of industry. Biases caused by a desire for fame or reputation are rarely mentioned, but are probably as or more important in causing biased measurements and invalid interpretations. However, industry is often held responsible for results that are thought to be not believable because methodology was designed improperly or the results altered to make them more suitable to what industry wants. Studies support this contention.1-3
When investigators develop the methodology, own the data, and write the paper themselves, the conclusions can be accurate, even when a study is funded by industry
The article by Jinapraya et al (2167), reviewed here, appears to demonstrate that industry-funded trials, however, need not lead to noticeably biased results. This is refreshing and important. The study methodology is sound. The conclusions are probably adequately valid. What it suggests is that when investigators develop the methodology, own the data, and write the paper themselves, the conclusions can be accurate, even when a study is funded by industry.
References
- Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, et al. The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences. Part 1: A qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107(16):279-85.
- Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, et al. The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences. Part 2: A qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010: 107(17):295-301.
- Tungaraza T, Poole R. Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. Brit Journal of Psychiatry 2007: 191:82-83.
Comments
The comment section on the IGR website is restricted to WGA#One members only. Please log-in through your WGA#One account to continue.Log-in through WGA#One
