Research funded by Pharma biased towards favorable drug efficacy says new report
According to a recent report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry are 30 times more likely to report heightened efficacy estimates for drugs.
The report is based on a three-day workshop that focused on the conflict of interests in health research and highlighted how corporate funding impacts every aspect of scientific research, including the research questions, methods, results, and conclusions.
A workshop on this topic included several academics, public health officials, and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry.
Evidence presented at the workshop demonstrated how corporate funding often steers research agendas and influences the reporting and dissemination of findings.
There was a broad agreement that the undue influence of corporate funding in scientific research needs to be curtailed.
Lisa Bero, Ph.D., from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, provided a comprehensive framework for the report, emphasizing strong evidence of consistent bias favoring research sponsors.
These biases can influence everything from the conclusions drawn to the very research agenda itself, often at the expense of public health concerns.
To illustrate the extent of this bias, Dr. Bero cited a meta-analysis of 3,000 studies, which found that industry-sponsored studies were 30 times more likely to report statistically significant efficacy estimates for drugs.
She also highlighted how industry funding can affect how researchers frame their conclusions, regardless of the actual study results, leading to potential misinterpretation in the media.
Several solutions were proposed to mitigate these issues, including implementing clearer policies to eliminate conflicts of interest, enforcing rules prohibiting sponsors from having any role in study design or reporting and advocating for more public research funding.
However, the efficacy of public funding as a solution was questioned due to the influence of corporate funding in many public institutions.
NASEM’s report serves as a significant call to action for the scientific community and policymakers alike, emphasizing the urgent need to safeguard health research’s independence, integrity, and reliability from commercial influences.
Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief · Editorial standards · Report an error