Despite the tobacco industry's claims that it has changed its practices, the toll of tobacco-related disease and death continues to grow worldwide, and the industry continues to use a vast array of strategies to promote its products and increase profits. This commentary discusses the ways the tobacco industry has created controversy about risk assessment and about the scientific evidence of the health hazards of secondhand smoke. The authors recommend that policymakers be more vigilant and that they demand transparency about affiliations and linkages between allegedly independent scientists and tobacco companies. They also urge policymakers to be prepared for new and continuing challenges posed by the tobacco industry, because, despite the industry's claims, there is little evidence of fundamental change in its objectives. (+info)
Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology": tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms.
(74/1000)
The tobacco industry has attacked "junk science" to discredit the evidence that secondhand smoke-among other environmental toxins-causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a "sound science" program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry's role. The European "sound science" plans included a version of "good epidemiological practices" that would make it impossible to conclude that secondhand smoke-and thus other environmental toxins-caused diseases. Public health professionals need to be aware that the "sound science" movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients. (+info)
Obstacles facing translational research in academic medical centers.
(75/1000)
Over the last quarter of the 20th century, there has been a boom in biomedical research discoveries that, for the most part, has not been successfully exploited for improving medical therapy or diagnosis. This lack of success is surprising because there is a broad consensus within academic medical centers (AMCs) that a primary mission is to move scientific discoveries into meaningful clinical outcomes, and there are numerous opportunities for doing so. We illustrate the latter point with 10 clinical opportunities for translating scientific discoveries from our field of vascular biology and transplantation. We attribute the limited success of translation to various factors, chief of which is that translation is rarely straightforward and requires continuing research in both the clinic and the laboratory. Translational research is hindered by insufficient targeted resources, a shortage of qualified investigators, an academic culture that hinders collaboration between clinical and laboratory-based investigators, a traditional structure of the AMC that favors departmental efforts over interdisciplinary programs, an increasing regulatory burden, and a lack of specific mechanisms within the AMC for facilitating solutions to these problems. We offer several suggestions to reduce these impediments. (+info)
Biopharmacologic and herbal therapies for cancer: research update from NCCAM.
(76/1000)
During the past decade, use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by the American public increased from 34% in 1990 to 42% in 1995 with related out-of-pocket expenditures estimated at $27 billion. Among cancer patients, use of CAM ranges between 30 and 75% worldwide and includes dietary approaches, herbals and other biologically based treatments such as melatonin, mushrooms, shark cartilage and high dose vitamins and minerals. Concerns about herb-nutrient-drug interactions and product quality and standardization emphasize the need for rigorous research. In 1998, Congress mandated the creation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to conduct and support such research of CAM therapies. The NCCAM portfolio for oncology is rapidly growing. As of July 2001, 26 projects are underway, two specialized centers are funded for cancer research and four botanical centers are cofunded with the Office of Dietary Supplements. Investigations are targeting herbals and complex herbal formulas; single dietary supplements and complex dietary regimens; biological agents; and mind-body, body-based and frontier approaches. Of these, biopharmacologic and herbal therapies are a major focus of research. The NCCAM portfolio illustrates how research of CAM, particularly studies of biopharmacologic and herbal approaches for cancer, is developing systematically and rigorously. (+info)
Seeking development by design.
(77/1000)
Genomes: Harvard's new Bauer Center for Genomics Research has an ambitious plan to bolster novel research and collaboration to exploit genome data for studies on how biological systems work. Karen Hopkin reports. (+info)
Hematology grants workshop-2001.
(78/1000)
This year the Hematology Grants Workshop, chaired by Dr. Todd, includes a comprehensive listing of available National Institutes of Health, Department of Veterans Affairs, and non-federal grants applicable to fellows and junior faculty as well as to established investigators. In Section II, Dr. Miller discusses the essential principles of successful grant writing with a special emphasis on the young investigator. He highlights the best strategies to take and the common mistakes to avoid. In Section III, Dr. Silverstein outlines the structure of the current NIH Integrated Review Group (IRG) system and the study sections of the most relevance to hematology. He traces the path that a grant takes from review to funding including the way in which grants are reviewed at NIH Study Section Meetings and provides advice in the preparation of revised applications. (+info)
National Research Service Awards. Final rule.
(79/1000)
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is amending the regulations governing National Research Service Awards (NRSA) in order to incorporate changes necessitated by enactment of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) Reorganization Act of 1992, Public Law 102-321, and the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Public Law 103-43. (+info)
The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials.
(80/1000)
BACKGROUND: Previous studies limited to specific drugs or journal types have shown an association between the source of funding of research and the published results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the association between source of support of research and published outcomes of randomized controlled drug trials in general interest medical journals. METHODS: Randomized controlled drug trials (n = 314) published in five general interest medical journals over a 2-year period were reviewed. Study outcome was classified as positive or negative. Support was classified as pharmaceutical industry or non-industry. Association between source of support and outcome was tested with the chi-squared statistic. RESULTS: Positive findings were found in 77% of studies, negative findings in 20% and an uncertain outcome in 3%. Support from commercial sources was found in 68% of trials. Negative findings were found in 13% of industry-supported studies and in 35% of non-industry-supported studies (chi-squared = 18.36, P < 0.0001, odds ratio = 3.54, 95% confidence interval 1.90-6.62). CONCLUSIONS: An association was found between the source of study support and the published outcome. Though the reason for this association cannot be determined from the data collected, future studies may clarify the importance of this finding for readers concerned with the relationship of funding bodies to the publication of research outcomes. (+info)