Connected to the growing clout of industry in institutions is concern about thecommercialization of research and resolving the ‘patient or product’ loyalty.

There is ambivalence about industry funding and influence in academia, and a consequent ‘approach-avoidance’ conflict. If academia has to provide the patients and research talent, industry necessarily has to provide the finances and other facilities based on it. This is an invariable and essential agreement between the two parties that they can walk out of only at their own peril. The profound ethical concerns that industry funded research has brought center-stage need a close look, especially as they impact patients, research subjects, public trust, marketability of products, and research and professional credibility.

How can the intermediate goal of industry (patient welfare) serve the purpose of the final goal of academia is the basic struggle for conscientious research institutions /associations. And how best the goal of maximizing profits can be best served, albeit suitably camouflaged as patient welfare throughout, is the concern of the pharmaceutical industry.

A very great potential conflict of interest lies in the fact that academia needs the sophisticated instruments that only big funding can provide, while at the same time resists the attempts of the fund provider to set the agenda of research, protocol, design, publication, the works. Conflicts arise at many steps and levels of functioning, and are related to the expectations, competing interests, and conflicting priorities of the different entities involved, whether they are the academic medical centers, the funding agencies, the patients and their families, or the investors and venture capitalists.

The public expects access to new treatments. Its appetite for innovation has been bolstered by the constant attention given by the press to new treatments and by the implicit promise from researchers of continuing advances. Similarly, patients demand privacy and control over information about themselves.

It makes greater sense for genuine researchers to associate with large long-term industry players who have a track record of genuine hard-core discoveries, even if the process is slow (maybe), and the funding less (may not be).

The element of control venture capitalists exert over the pharmaceutical industry is an under researched area for obvious reasons. But it needs further probing, for that will lay bare the pulls and pressures under which industry works.

It makes sense for ethically minded researchers and institutions not to fall in the trap of stocks and equity investments in industry, howsoever attractive they appear, and get rid of them as soon as possible if they have them. If at all they want, it makes more sense to own stocks of larger well established concerns, for the stock upheavals being less, the pressure of the market-place, and of venture sharks, is likely to be lower too.

While active participation by the researcher in the commercialization process may be greatly desired by industry, ostensibly in the name of creating value, academia must realize it is a bait it might find hard to swallow in the long run. It makes more sense for the researcher and institution to forego such temptations and/or walk out of such investments as soon as possible.

A number of important areas of the connect between academia, the medical professional and the pharmaceutical industry have been highlighted by articles in the last decade, especially in the last five years, which have still to find place in textbooks of medicine or psychiatry. While this by itself can be considered alarming by some, for denial is a poor coping mechanism, if at all, what is of interest to us here is how the connect has developed, what are the major areas of influence (and concern), what the remedies for the present, if any, and what the portents for the future. The growing commercialization of research with its effect on the ethical conduct of researchers, and the advancement of scientific knowledge with its effect on the welfare or otherwise of patients, are areas of pressing concern and need a serious, thorough study.

This monograph tries to address some of the issues in this connection.

Now it is possible to mentally resolve the issue for oneself rather well by the following argument. Academia-industry relationship is increasing and augurs well for the future growth of medical research and patient welfare. Well, there are some problems, as is inevitable with all such potentially controversial but useful relationships. Rather than concentrate on, and magnify, the faults, it makes more sense to accent the positive, and create an atmosphere whereby it continues to be maximized, while making the negative less attractive, and yet inevitable to an extent. There is negative fallout of everything. Instead of cribbing about it, we accept it and move on with optimizing the worthwhile.

This is a beautiful and useful rationalization, if the negative is to be put in its place and done away with. But it is a dangerous reasoning if it is meant to sweep certain ominous portents under the carpet. When it is the dust in our house that we have to take care of, we just brush it off right away, or sweep it under the carpet to be removed a little later. And do not bother any further. However, if the dust that flies is heralding an oncoming storm, we cannot brush it off, or sweep it under the carpet. For it retains the ability to sweep us off our feet, carpet and all. Here, damage control measures become mandatory, some after, but many more before, the storm erupts.

We now have the potential to enter one of the most productive periods in biomedical research, the success of which will depend to no small degree on an increasingly close partnership between universities and industry (Nathan and Weatherall, 2002).

Economic partnerships between industry and academia accelerate medical innovation and enhance patient access to medical advances (Johns, Barnes and Florencio, 2003).

Most clinical studies that bring new drugs from bench to bedside are financed by pharmaceutical companies. Many of these drug trials are rigorously designed, employing the skills of outstanding clinical researchers at leading academic institutions (Bodenheimer, 2000).

Within many hundred years’ time when people will reflect on history, the 19^th century might well be written as the century of industry, the 20^th century as the century of information and technology, and the 21^st century as the century of biomedicines and healthcare (EFPIA, 2005).

Industry funding is supposed to help disease prevention and treatment, improve clinical practice and result in useful products for patients. In this the profit motive acts as a spur:

Without industry funding, important advances in disease prevention and treatment would not have occurred. In the words of Lee Goldman, chairman of the Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, “companies translate biologic advances into useable products for patients. They do it for a profit motive, but they do it,and it needs to be done.” … many collaborations with pharmaceutical companies were conducted on a high professional level…The infusion of industry dollars into an industry–investigator partnership has clearly improved clinical practice (Bodenheimer, 2000).

But this partnership is a double-edged sword, for it carries with it the potential of an exciting future as much as the prospect of misappropriation and malevolence. Moreover, such partnerships have sometimes eroded public trust in the research enterprise (Johns, Barnes and Florencio, 2003). Links between academia and industry are of increasing concern to academics and to society at large and the sectors involved must review and revise their policies in order to sustain the public account ability and academic freedom of universities (Nature, 2001). For, the selection of research topics, the freedom of the research process, the public perception of researchers’ role and gains, and the extent of exploitation that industry can carry out of institutions and researchers—all these have come under close scrutiny that will increase in the years to come.

Already alarming portents from the activities of the recent past point to a rather roller-coaster ride for the academia-industry relationship, like the uneasy alliance or marriage of convenience it often turns out to be. Moreover, universities will have to decide on the extent to which they wish to become commercialized and will have to monitor the effect that such commercialization has on the pattern of their research, on public confidence in research, and on academic freedom (Nathan and Weatherall, 2002).

Writing an editorial in the NEJM, Angell (2000) makes the point rather piquantly:

The decision of several large pharmaceutical companies, and many biotechnology companies, to build major new laboratories near U.S., European, and Asian universities is just one example of the growing commercial value of academic innovation in biomedicine and the talent that produces it (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

One of the major questions now is how to address potential conflicts of interest or commitment surrounding the commercialization of research — how to strike a balance between the need for investigators to act in the best interests of patients and their desire to serve the interests of the product they are developing (Kelch, 2002).

This is what Kelch starts his paper with. But his conclusion is quite categorical:

One cannot work simultaneously as an inventor-entrepreneur and a physician or other health care provider and maintain the trust of patients and the public. To attempt to do so is to challenge the primacy of the doctor–patient covenant. On the other hand, the system must allow enough flexibility for promising new approaches to be tested (Kelch, 2002).

Which means the inventor-entrepreneur cannot also play the role of a treating physician, much though he may so desire, or feel competent about. At the same time, the system must continue to allow for him to prosper too, in so far as he demonstrates promise visà-vis patient welfare; and provide him an atmosphere whereby his experimental approaches can be tested on research subjects supplied by academia.

There is the other belief that academia-industry proximity aids technology transfer beneficial to academia. But this claim is somewhat sustainable in basic research, though greatly exaggerated in clinical research, which is the mainstay of their proximity:

I believe the claim that extensive ties between academic researchers and industry are necessary for technology transfer is greatly exaggerated, particularly with regard to clinical research. There may be some merit to the claim for basic research, but in most clinical research, including clinical trials, the “technology” is essentially already developed. Researchers are simply testing it. Furthermore, whether financial arrangements facilitate technology transfer depends crucially on what those arrangements are. Certainly grant support is constructive, if administered properly. But it is highly doubtful whether many of the other financial arrangements facilitate technology transfer or confer any other social benefit (Angell, 2000).

The infusion of industry dollars into an industry–investigator partnershiph as clearly improved clinical practice. Yet the medical literature contains many articles expressing concern about industrial funding of clinical research(Bodenheimer, 2000).

And then he goes on to list a number of studies that voice this concern:

Stelfox et al. (Stelfox, Chua, O’Rourke and Detsky, 1998) found that authors whose work supported the safety of calcium-channel antagonists had a higher frequency of financial relationships with the drugs’ manufacturers than authors whose work did not support the safety of these medications. Davidson (1986) reported that results favoring a new therapy over a traditional one were more likely if the study was funded by the new therapy's manufacturer. Cho and Bero (1996) demonstrated that articles from symposiums sponsored by a single drug company were more likely than articles without company support to have outcomes favorable to the sponsor's drugs. Friedberg et al. (Friedberg, Saffran, Stinson, Nelson and Bennett, 1999) reported that 5 percent of industry-sponsored pharmacoeconomic studies of cancer drugs reached unfavorable conclusions about the company's products, as compared with 38 percent of studies with nonprofit funding that reached similar conclusions (Bodenheimer, 2000; parenthesis added)

Financial support to research favours industry as regards safety and effectiveness of drugs, and favourable outcome of trials. Researchers, in other words, are not immune to financial considerations and extra-scientific considerations while pursuing so-called scientific goals.

In the case of the academia-industry connect, we are at a stage at which psychiatry was some decades ago. It had reams and reams written on psychopathology, with little to offer as treatment. Or medicine was half a century ago, when it, similarly, had volumes on signs and symptoms but little to offer as treatment (remember the sanatoria phase for tuberculosis?). Similarly, even here we have reams upon reams written about the desirability-undesirability of the academia-industry connect, but little about the methods to remedy it. Hopefully, this will change as more concerned with the long-term welfare of biomedical advance get conversant with the magnitude of the problem and girdle their loins to do something about it. As happened with medicine in this last fifty years. Or with psychiatry as a branch in the last two decades. Maybe the next two decades will see greater efforts at remedying this situation with regard to the academia-industry connect. A major step forward would be taken if the ambivalence could be taken care of, and more clarity and firmness demonstrated on both sides, whether academia or industry. In any case, events and activists will ensure this occurs, if the concerned parties continue to remain complacent. Which may not be a very pleasant state of affairs to be in for sure.

Clinical psychopharmacology has been and likely will remain heavily influenced, if not dominated by, the pharmaceutical industry, especially for compounds early in the product development sequence. Industry funding for clinical trials is many times larger than NIH (extramural, including NIMH) funding: $4.1 billion, compared to $850 million in 2000 (March, Silva, Compton, Shapiro, Califfand Krishnan, 2005).

Even in 2003, Moynihan found:

More than half the biomedical research being done in the United States is now privately funded, with sponsors able to set the research agenda (Moynihan, 2003).

This need for large funds is, moreover, coupled with the desire to acquire it without making a dent in one's own pockets. The easiest way that can happen is getting an interested party to fund it, which has a big stake in the success of the entire venture. Hence, the pharmaceutical industry becomes a willing partner in the whole enterprise.

Now, this is fine as it goes, and academia may consider the issue beautifully resolved. The only spanner in the works is industry and its aspirations, which are not any idealized notions of research for patient welfare, but to run a profit making concern. And why not, if it cannot make the profits, it cannot survive. And if it cannot provide the funds that flow only if profitability is ensured, and maintained down the years, no academic institution would want to associate with it anyway.

The question we can ask is: why can patient welfare not maximize profit? To that the answer is the perpetual gap between is and ought. Patient welfare ought to optimize profit, however shrewd marketing in the name of patient welfare does. Patient welfare is good to espouse and mouth, but profit is the name of the game for industry. So, profit always: if possible with, if necessary without, patient welfare. For academia, it ought to be patient welfare always: if possible with, if necessary without, industry sponsorship. Unfortunately, the reality seems to have gravitated to industry sponsorship always: if possible with, if necessary without, patient welfare.

We must note that medicine costing is not only inclusive of R and D, marketing, infrastructure, raw material, manufacturing, regulatory authorities, trials and profits. Every new medicine carries the inbuilt cost of producing the next new medicine:

Since the price of a new medicine carries within it a contribution towards the cost of discovering the next, the mainstay of the European pharmaceutical industry's long-term competitiveness is its ability to pay for research and development of future medicines (EFPIA, 2005).

Every new medicine is caught in an inevitable upward price spiral. Apart from other costs, it must pay for the development of the next new medicine. The pharmaceutical industry has to bear this in mind if it has to survive, and prosper, in the long run. So have the patients, and the medicine prescribers. How can they expect newer medicines to come to them that are cheaper than the previous? Unless, of course, raw material is cheaper, and manufacturing/approval cost is lower? In other words, it is one thing to want new drugs, it is quite another to expect them to be cost effective. Activists and academia have to take note of this.

Pharmaceutical companies can take justified pride in the fact that many research-oriented pharmaceuticals spend more on R and D that most other industry sectors:

Research-driven pharmaceutical companies invest about 20 % of their sales in R&D, which represents a higher percentage than any other industrial sector (incl. high-tech industries such as electronics, aerospace or automobiles) (EFPIA, 2005).

However, money so invested needs to be recovered, if possible by patient welfare, if necessary without. It is absolutely necessary that recovery be ensured. Like the loan financing concerns run as much on how much they can finance as on how much is the recovery, you can trust the pharmaceuticals to go all out to recover their monumental investments. Being greater pals with prescribers and passing on the cost to the consumer are inevitable.

The next point is equally noteworthy here. We must know the difficulty of the pharmaceuticals to understand how they need to balance finance with patient welfare. Out of 5000-10000 products studied, only one reaches the pharmacy shelf, and that too after 12-13 years, at a cost of approximately euro 895 million per product:

…it takes an average of 12 to 13 years to bring a new medicine from the laboratory to the pharmacy shelf… (And) on average, only one out of 5,000 to 10,000 promising substances will survive extensive testing in the R&D phase to become approved as a quality, safe and efficient marketable product. (Also) several studies put the cost of researching and developing a new chemical entity (NCE) at euro 895 million (EFPIA, 2005; ‘And’, ‘Also’ added in parenthesis).

Hence, while costs are soaring, and pressures to reduce prices is on, individual companies find it difficult to survive, and are undergoing mergers and acquisitions so that overheads can reduce and profitability can be maximized:

Soaring R&D costs - combined with downward pressure on prices - are making it harder and harder for many pharmaceutical companies to recoup their R&D expenditure before patents expire. Individual companies are therefore becoming highly vulnerable and are striving to consolidate their positions and to achieve critical mass, through an ongoing process of mergers and acquisitions (EFPIA, 2005).

The greater pressures of soaring research and infrastructure costs, and added physician hospitality of various types, together with maintaining the great profitability of the pharmaceutical industry (one of the best amongst commercial enterprises today), and added litigation costs which are increasing and will increase in the future- all these point to a major cost escalation in the biomedical field, for which the already financially compromised patient will pay higher and higher sums, whether as actual sums or as insurance premium. Hence we can expect greater corporatisation of medicine in the future, and medicine becoming a business is a distinct possibility, if it is not already. However, there is a silver lining to it too. This is a fertile ground for greater preventive medicine, as also for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). While some may have reservations about the latter, none can about the former. It also becomes clear why there is a greater thrust towards CAM we witness all over.

Clinical research involving human subjects and potentially marketable products carries with it unique ethical considerations. Human research subjects, the medical profession, and the public rely on clinical investigators to make decisions based solely on professional judgment, without regard for personal gain (Blumenthal, 1996; Relman,1989). However, growing evidence suggests that close financial ties between industry sponsors and clinical investigators may influence the quality and outcome of clinical studies (Bero and Rennie, 1996; Bodenheimer, 2000). Furthermore, these relationships may undermine the public's trust of clinical research (Weiss and Nelson, 2000; Angell, 2000.) (Boyd, Cho and Bero, 2003. Parenthesis added.)

The evidence that financial ties affect outcome of trials is bound to undermine trust in clinical research and make all concerned question whether clinical research investigation is guided by considerations of patient welfare or personal gain.

Moreover, there is evidence that drug-marketing techniques affect doctors’ prescribing practices. This has ethical implications for doctors, as it affects the trust required in the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors need to recognise they are affected by drug marketing, and take steps to maintain their independence from the pharmaceutical industry (Breen, 2004). Some of the available evidence about doctors’ prescribing habits points out that 80%–95% of doctors see industry representatives regularly (Moynihan, 2003). However that would not be a problem by itself without the other finding: more frequent contact is linked with unnecessary prescribing and increased use of new drugs (Wazana, 2000; Watkins, Moore and Harvey et al , 2003).

What is the evidence of the influence of attending sponsored conferences? Well, attendance at sponsored conferences is associated with increased prescribing of the sponsor's product. This increase can be seen for the next 6 months (Watkins, Moore and Harvey et al, 2003). And how much does the drug industry spend per physician? Hold your breath: it is estimated that industry spends about $21 000 per year per practicing doctor on drug promotion (Jureidini and Mansfield, 2001) (See also Breen, 2004).

$ 21,000 per year per practising physician? What are doctors? Some old time feudal lords who need to wallow in luxury?

Of course there are suggestions to reduce the impact of the industry dollar—by increasing government spending. In a letter as response to the Breen (2004) paper above, Woodruff (2004a), for example, suggests:

…I suggest that the pharmaceutical pseudo-educational dollar be bypassed by a major expansion in government funding (Woodruff, 2004b). The provision of regularly updated, easily accessible treatment guidelines integrated into prescribing software (which most general practitioners use daily) would go a long way to decreasing our reliance on the drug dollar for information on appropriate treatment. This requires government investment and professional college cooperation, but would lead to recurrent savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and better treatment (Woodruff, 2004a).

Note the author considers the pharmaceutical financial support to be a pseudo-educational dollar. The suggestion of regularly updated easily accessible treatment guidelines is noteworthy, but who makes the treatment guidelines is very important. There is emerging proof of the influence of funding even there. We shall deal with this in the next monograph. (Nov.2005-Feb2006).

He further points out:

Currently, the federal government spends $21 million on drug information to doctors (National Prescribing Service Limited, 2002–03), while the drug industry spends $1 billion on marketing (Spending on drug promotion, July 2004). To partially redress this imbalance would, however, require both political will and pressure from the profession (Woodruff, 2004a; parenthesis added).

The political will can be easily turned around, if it is not already. The professional will is already firmly turned towards the industry dollar. How practical Woodruff's approach will turn out to be only time can tell. But trust the well entrenched to resist it to the utmost, and do so in very persuasive ways. Well, if this sounds cynical, so be it. How can one hide the obvious?

Articles in the popular and scientific press have discussed concerns about patient safety in clinical trials, issues related to privacy, conflicts of interest on the part of researchers and their institutions, a shift of priorities in academic research from the public good to private commercial gain, and the potential for disruption of the historical compact between physicians and their patients (Kelch,2002)(Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

Concerns about patient safety, privacy, conflict of interest, and a shift of priorities in academic institutions are likely to be voiced all right, but essentially it is a losing battle for the institutions and associations as things stand today. This is because there is a fundamental dichotomy between the institutions/ associations’ professed principals and the pharmaceutical industry's goals and objectives. While the former profess research for the sake of patient welfare and make their existence dependent on it, the latter researches for the sake of profits, patient welfare being only an intermediate goal. How can the intermediate goal of industry serve the purpose of the final goal of academia is the basic struggle for conscientious research institutions/associations. And how best the goal of maximizing profits can be best served, albeit suitably camouflaged as patient welfare throughout, is the concern of the pharmaceutical industry.

In this cat and mouse game, institutions/ associations may feel they are smart enough to utilize pharmaceutical industry for patient welfare, but often the case is otherwise. The pharmaceutical industry utilizes patients and willing doctors/researchers as accomplices, often without their awareness but sometimes as willing recruits, in their goal to maximize profits. And they are smart enough to do so with a massive ego-massage of the doctors/researchers concerned. And often the doctors/researchers concerned do not even realize it. Or even if they do, may continue to acquiesce in it.

According to one Stanford University researcher (Boyd, Cho and Bero, 2003), for example:

It's a delicate thing. You have to decide for yourself. For example, I’m getting money from [a large pharmaceutical company] for a study I’m working on. They also have me on speakers’ bureau. I feel comfortable with this arrangement as long as the slides I use are my own, and I’m speaking about my own research and opinions. I don’t think the information I present has anything to do with what [the company] wants me to say. This system can be, and is, abused. Some people do give canned talks prepared by the companies that are paying them.

“I don’t think the information I present has anything to do with what [the company] wants me to say”. Great. Will you be able to speak publicly about your negative findings of the sponsored research you are presently working on? Will you be able to say the drug is hopeless? Would you speak about the ill effects, or no effects, of the drugs your sponsor company is busy promoting all around? Or in the slides that you prepare? Those are the questions that need honest answers. It is not just a matter of not giving canned talks. It is a matter of loyalty to sponsors for future prospects.

Another rationalization is equally smart, and convenient too. For example, another Stanford University investigator (Boyd, Cho and Bero, 2003) stated:

Obviously there is the potential for bad science, but I think that exists regardless of whether or not industry is involved. The issue fundamentally boils down to the sense of responsibility of individual investigators.

Bad science existing regardless of industry is not the same as bad science existing because of industry involvement. The question is: is it there or not? And to leave it to individual investigators is fine. But it should not become a ploy to do nothing, lay down no parameters, offer no guidelines, and have no regulatory or redressal mechanisms in place.

Although the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms in ensuring the ethical conduct of clinical research is limited (Miller, Rosenstein and DeRenzo, 1998), which means regulatory mechanisms may work poorly, if at all, it does not mean they are useless. All it means is they are being unheeded, or worked around. The situation can potentially change with greater awareness in all concerned.

Whether others work or not, one regulatory mechanism works for sure. The regulatory mechanism of the research career upswing - industry profit combine, and will continue to guide present and future efforts.

Some researchers feel:

Academic biomedical research and industrial biomedical research have similar needs. Both require ready access to specialized talent, from senior investigators through postdoctoral fellows (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

This is one example of the naive thinking so prevalent in academia, for which an antidote is urgently needed but will not be accepted as easily. The academic biomedical and the industrial biomedical do not have similar needs. Their needs coincide only in so far as they both may need research fellows to work and senior investigators to guide. However, how the services of these research fellows and senior investigators have to be utilized is very different in both. While the academic biomedical research professes to do so for patient welfare, the industrial one has to consider that only an intermediate goal in the ultimate one to maximize profits. This difference must be clearly understood and articulated, and academia has to seriously debate its ethical-pragmatic implications.

An important related issue is what researchers, both in academia and industry, seek, and how it is at variance with what industry and its needs can provide. Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their (2002) believe:

Researchers from both environments seek interactive, bidirectional relationships that involve the exchange of ideas, materials, and expertise, rather than relationships according to the terms dictated by corporate and university technology-transfer agreements, which emphasize confidentiality, ownership, and valuation of intellectual property.

Indeed, and to good reason, and purpose, for they can survive, and prosper, only when they exchange ideas, materials and expertise, for those are their lifelines. And they are likely to see agreements as hindrances and irksome roadblocks in so doing. But there worth is immediately realized when there are conflicts that need to be legally resolved, as happened in the recent Nancy Olivieri case (Downie, Thompson and Baird, 2001; Baylis, 2004; Schafer, 2004; Faunce, Bolsin and Chan, 2004) which we shall have occasion to discuss in a subsequent monograph (p53-55).

While, “Both groups of scientists often view the university's technology-transfer office and the company's legal staff as barriers to, rather than facilitators of, progress” (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their 2002), it maybe better for both sides to consider these as necessary processes, for the medical institution side to be careful about what it is going in for, and what are its rights if the whole project does not work out. As they say, a carefully worded and well-understood Dissolution Clause in any agreement is a necessary evil to prevent so much of potential bad blood entering in later, as did occur in the Olivieri case, for example (read a detailed exposition of the Olivieri case in Schafer, 2004). The need for full access to data, right to publish contrary findings, and ironclad protection for the researcher if the research contract between academia and industry goes bust is imperative. Moreover, institution and its researcher may have conflicting interests too, and that can be equally embarrassing to handle. As Drazen (2002) points out:

The growing scale of research is another important factor that favors collaboration. Basic research in normal biology and disease mechanisms is growing increasingly dependent on sophisticated techniques and complex equipment with high initial costs and high maintenance costs. These expenses are a substantial obstacle for many universities and make industry support or collaboration desirable (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

But academia has something important to offer as well in the form of patients and controls, and the other backup material on which research can work:

On the other hand, the critical task of genotype–phenotype correlation, on which pharmacogenomics, disease-predisposition testing, and early interventions depend, requires access to well-characterized clinical populations and biologic material from normal and affected persons, as well as depth in bioinformatics and computational biology — resources that are the strength of the academic medical center (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

So there is so much to complement in both these institutions that has the potential both for research maximization and exploitation:

These complementary forces enhance the interdependence of industry and academic laboratories but also add to difficulties with regard to disclosure, ownership of intellectual property, and the interchange of researchers, information, and biologic materials (Moses, Braunwald, Martin and Their, 2002).

A very great potential conflict of interest lies in the fact that academia needs the sophisticated instruments that only big funding can provide, while at the same time resists the attempts of the fund provider to set the agenda of research, protocol, design, publication, the works. The fund provider, similarly, has a conflict of interest insofar as he provides the funds ostensibly for research and patient welfare, but all the time seeks to maximize his commercial interests. And when there is a conflict between the two, he must firmly cater to the latter, if possible with academia's cooperation, if necessary with the courts’.

No clear-cut or worthwhile resolution of this situation appears in sight as yet. Which, in essence, means the academia-industry relationship is wide open to ulterior motivations as much as to ethical connectedness. However, a realization of the differences in goals and motivations of academia and industry is an important step in increasing the ethical connectedness and reducing the ulteriority, while accepting that the connection has indeed been quite fruitful in some ways:

All of this is not to gainsay the importance of the spectacular advances in therapy and diagnosis made possible by new drugs and devices. Nor is it to deny the value of cooperation between academia and industry. But that cooperation should be at arm's length, with both sides maintaining their own standards and ethical norms. The incentives of the marketplace should not become woven into the fabric of academic medicine. We need to remember that for-profit businesses are pledged to increase the value of their investors’ stock. That is a very different goal from the mission of medical schools (Angell, 2000).

Is academia ready to cooperate but at arm's length? Is it ready to forego incentives of the market place? Is it ready to maintain its own standards and ethical norms? Is it ready to understand that the mission of medical schools is very different from the values of for-profit businesses?