OU Medical Center policies ward off conflict of interest
Ethics: 90 percent of life-science companies linked to academia
School maintains oversight at many levels to avoid the appearance of financial inf

By Jeff Raymond

Published: March 17, 2007

The coziness between some medical researchers and drug companies has come under fire nationally. But the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center's ethics policies are strong and avert problems, a research official at the school says.

Ninety percent of life-science companies have a financial relationship with academia, according to the New York-based think tank Public Agenda.

Scientists with a monetary stake in the outcome of their research may be disinclined to publish negative results in scientific journals, share information with colleagues or inform clinical-trial patients of their allegiances. In some cases, research-money contracts have given drug companies control over journal publication — the way researchers introduce findings to the scientific community.

A November 2000 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found conflict of interest policies varied widely among some of the nation's top medical schools. In 2004, the New America Foundation reported that only one-quarter of universities require their researchers to disclose conflicts of interest — yet policies can go well beyond disclosure.

Oversight and enforcement often are as important as what the rules say, said Joseph L. Waner, vice president for research at the OU Health Sciences Center.

Before OUresearchers can apply for funds from the government or drug companies they must submit paperwork detailing their relationship to their funding source. If the researcher is a major shareholder or stands to make money in a lucrative consulting deal, the school may veto the agreement or insist on changes.

"We have oversight at multiple levels of the process,” Waner said.

Most of the time, Waner said, there is no actual conflict of interest, but the appearance of one is enough to raise flags. "We're very concerned about the perception of a conflict of interest,” he said.

The health center uses National Institutes of Health standards, which specify a $10,000 threshold for gifts or pay to researchers. Although making money or owning stock is not necessarily a deal-breaker for a researcher, Waner and the dean must sign off on arrangements, and researchers must explain their circumstances.

As for cooperation with biotechnology companies, Waner said it was "a continuing oversight issue” but rarely became a problem. Firms, he said, knew of the college's rules when they enlisted the help of its scientists.

Although researchers sometimes see the requirements as attacking their integrity, they are necessary to safeguard the university.

"Faculty members will buy into that,” he said.

In fiscal year 2006, the health center received $27 million in pharmaceutical company research funds. Because of the safeguards in place, Waner said such assistance didn't cause problems and was a vital source of money.

"I've been in this position 2 ½ years, and I'm not aware of one,” he said of compromising circumstances that required a researcher to drop a project.

Hugh Robert, executive director of the Tulsa-based Center for Consumer and Patient Safety, said medical advancements, whether pharmaceutical or technological, were crucial to improving health care delivery.

"While development is important, we must ensure the advancements and research is done in such a way that will result in an increase in patient safety, not provide additional risks,” he wrote in an e-mail.

"A critical component of providing a level of certainty in patient safety is maintaining objectivity in research. It is therefore important to manage financial relationships and avoid any hint of a potential conflict to maintain scientific objectivity and thus providing for increased patient safety,” he continued. "It is only through this balance that both development and patients win together.”