|
Activity Number:
|
464
|
|
Type:
|
Topic Contributed
|
|
Date/Time:
|
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 : 10:30 AM to 12:20 PM
|
|
Sponsor:
|
Section on Statistics in Epidemiology
|
| Abstract - #304007 |
|
Title:
|
Industry sponsored science: Are consultants really biased?
|
|
Author(s):
|
Michael E. Ginevan*+ and S. Stanley Young*+ and Allen Heller*+ and Peter A. Lachenbruch*+ and Robert Obenchain*+
|
|
Companies:
|
M.E. Ginevan & Associates and National Institute of Statistical Sciences and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Oregon State University and Risk Benefit Statistics LLC
|
|
Address:
|
307 Hamilton Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20901, P.O. Box 14006, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, 6 West Belt, W-73, Wayne, NJ, 07470, 256 Waldo Hall, Corvallis, OR, 97331, 13212 Griffin Run, Carmel, IN, 46033-8835,
|
|
Keywords:
|
consulting ; ethics ; multiple comparisons ; replication ; publication bias
|
|
Abstract:
|
Recent authors have suggested that statisticians and other scientists funded by industry produce findings biased toward industry. As remedy, some have suggested that industry funded scientists be barred from the analysis and publication of research studies (e.g. consultants should not analyze/coauthor clinical trials.) Published literature concerning contentious risks, like those resulting from exposures to industrial chemicals, shows a preponderance of industry funded studies that are favorable to the sponsor, but consultants and industrial statisticians claim integrity, and it is in the long-term interest of industry to "get it right." Are such publications "biased" toward industry? This panel presents three points of view: ground truth, consultant/industry statistician, and industrial consumer. Two discussants explore the interactions among facts, consultants, and industry.
|
- The address information is for the authors that have a + after their name.
- Authors who are presenting talks have a * after their name.
Back to the full JSM 2009 program |
