Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Nov;84(11):1491-9.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb2ca6.

Institutions' expectations for researchers' self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior

Affiliations

Institutions' expectations for researchers' self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior

Brian C Martinson et al. Acad Med. 2009 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Private industry involvement is viewed as tainting research with self-interest, whereas public funding is generally well regarded. Yet, dependence on "soft money" also triggers researcher and university self-interest. No empirical research has compared these factors' effects on academic researchers' behaviors.

Method: In 2006-2007, a survey was mailed to 5,000 randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. Measures included a university's expectations or nonexpectations that researchers obtain external grant funding, the receipt or nonreceipt of public research funding, any relationships with private industry, and research-related behaviors ranging from the ideal, to the questionable, to misconduct.

Results: Being expected to obtain external funding and receiving federal research funding were both associated with significantly higher reports of 1 or more of 10 serious misbehaviors (P<.05) and neglectful or careless behaviors (P<.001). Researchers with federal funding were more likely than were those without to report having carelessly or inappropriately reviewed papers or proposals (9.6% versus 3.9%; P<.001). Those with private industry involvement were more likely than were those without to report 1 or more of 10 serious misbehaviors (28.5% versus 21.5%; P=.005) and to have engaged in misconduct (12.2% versus 7.1%; P=.004); they also were less likely to have always reported financial conflicts (96.0% versus 98.6%, P<.001).

Conclusions: The free play of university and individual self-interests, combined with and contributing to the intense competition for research funding, may be undermining scientific integrity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S, et al. Institutional Academic Industry Relationships. JAMA. 2007;298(15):1779–1786. - PubMed
    1. Bero L. “Experimental” institutional models for corporate funding of academic research: Unknown effects on the research enterprise. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(7):629–633. - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, et al. Data Withholding in Genetics and the Other Life Sciences: Prevalences and Predictors. Acad Med. 2006;81(2):137–145. - PubMed
    1. Kaiser J. ETHICS: Senate Inquiry on Research Conflicts Shifts to Grantees. Science. 2008;320(5884):1708. - PubMed
    1. Bunton SA, Mallon WT. The Continued Evolution of Faculty Appointment and Tenure Policies at U.S. Medical Schools. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(3):281–289. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms