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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martinson et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: