Conflicts of interest between collaborating academics and private firms are both common and poorly regulated by university officials, according to two new studies (NEJM, 343, 1621, 2000). The first, conducted by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), looked at the top 10 medical schools receiving funding from the NIH. Only one—UCSF—prohibited researchers from owning stock, stock options, consulting agreements or decision-making positions involving the firms for which they conduct clinical trials. “We don't see a problem with investigators being paid for their time and effort,” asserts Bernard Lo, a UCSF medical ethicist and senior author of the study. “It's the stock or options whose value rises and falls that is the problem.” Meanwhile, a group at Baylor College of Medicine and Veterans' Affairs Medical Center (Houston, TX) found that only 7% of 250 US medical schools and research institutions, and 43% of 47 science and medical journals surveyed, require financial disclosure in published reports. Moreover, of 11 federal agencies that fund extramural human research, only 4 have policies explicitly addressing conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, the FDA said in December that it plans to increase the number of inspections of clinical trials, as part of its efforts to better protect volunteers in clinical research (Nat. Biotechnol. 18, 1029, 2000).