News|Articles|July 27, 2009

Academia and Industry: Us vs Them

Is ensuring integrity within the clinical trials enterprise, as some claim, beyond the reach of industry?

In his July Clinical Trials Insight column, Kenneth Getz examines the recent harsh criticisms by academia aimed at industry research. Although for years academia has considered itself above industry, as of late some academics are taking their bias to the extreme, “calling for industry to have no involvement in clinical research,” according to Getz. They believe that the problems within the enterprise, such as conflicts of interest or unethical practices, are isolated to industry and suggest that only academic-based professionals can ensure integrity.

Check out how Getz responds to this view in “Are Academia and NIH Bastions of Integrity” and then let us know how you feel about it in an email to [email protected].

Responses and discussion regarding this topic will appear in a future blog post on this Web site.


Related to this article

The Human Side of Clinical Trials: How Measuring Readiness at Training Predicts Trial Risk Before It Shows Up in the Data
This episode of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, hosted by Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., and Kelly Ritch, chief operating officer of ArcheMedX, Inc., explores why training completion metrics like attendance and quiz scores fail to capture true study readiness, and how measuring both competence and confidence can reveal trial risks before enrollment even begins.
What the Epilepsy Community Has Taught Us About Trial Feasibility
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, shares what she has learned firsthand from families living with Dravet syndrome and CDKL5 deficiency disorder about what makes trial participation possible—and what makes it not.