More from Heather Finlay-Morreale from Ohio-RhonaGreetings all! Last month I skipped a few days of school and went to Tahoe for the Western Trauma Association Annual Meeting. Tahoe is 8,000 feet up in the Sierra Nevada mountains between Nevada and California and there was serious snow there. The night I arrived the main highway from the Reno airport was closed due to raging winds that could topple over a semi-truck and severe snowstorms.  The cars parked outside the hotel were nothing but little lumps under heaps and heaps of snow and this was just a typical winter day.

I was there to give an oral presentation of my research on firearm injury and homicide in women. There were several other medical student and scientist trainees there as well presenting research. In the photo, starting from the left is Travis Piester a medical student from the University of Iowa, Keir Warner a researcher from the University of Washington who will be starting medical school this fall, and myself.

Travis presented a project using on activated protein C in early fluid resuscitation therapy after burn injury. Activated protein C is used in the U.S. for severe sepsis but not for burn injuries. In burns, there is progression of burn injury after the initial injury and the idea was that protein C might mitigate this process. But - surprise, the low doses used early in the course of burn injury in a rat model actually made the burn worse.  I found that curious. What does a researcher do when the data shows a drug does exactly the opposite of what was expected? The research presentation began with the disclosure of all funding sources as is customary. I was intrigued that the research was partly funded by the pharmaceutical company that produces and markets activated protein C in the U.S. I wondered what the interactions were between the scientists and the company when data shows a drug does not work in a particular model and actually might worsen the condition? It was good to hear that Travis and the laboratory he worked in did not face any influence from any of their funders. They had funding from non-company sources as well and none of the funders had any influence on the publication of the findings.

In general, at all universities there are agreements that going through business and legal offices when grants are received. The complex relationship over who “owns” the data and whether a company can “block” publication may vary by agreement and by institution. The trend seems to be for universities and scientists to be sure that they have control over the data and the conclusions. The scientists and the universities have their name and reputation on a published paper and the work must be subject to an independent and rigorous peer-review process.

It was nice to hear that Travis and the laboratory he worked in did not face any influence from any of their funders. They had funding from non-company sources as well and none of the funders had any influence on the publication of the findings.

One scientist at the meeting was involved in the discussion of this topic at the meeting. They mentioned a case where a scientist spent nine years in court battling to have her industry funded research results published. She had completed a study show generic thyroxine was as good as brand name.  Presumably, she was “supposed” to find that the brand name was better. Heather FM : heatherhfm@gmail.com

Bookmark on delicious | Digg

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 12:21 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can trackback from your own site.