Undoubtedly, these are the first of many claims. The network connecting academic laboratories, academic institutions, and companies is growing denser, more complex, and much more lucrative for all involved. Academic institutions currently rely on both formal and informal means to limit conflict. Requirements for disclosure of commercial ties, limitations on equity holdings by faculty, insistence on the freedom to publish both negative and positive results, and restrictions on sources of commercial support of clinical trials are the chief formal means. However, there is growing reason to think that these safeguards are inadequate for the foreseeable opportunities ahead.
Most safeguards focus on the individual investigator or faculty member.
However, an even greater conflict may be posed when the university itself owns equity or receives royalties. Further, because junior participants in the laboratory group are commonly excluded from such financial rewards, this inequity between scientists may prove destructive to the fragile dynamics that have made academic laboratories so immensely productive. Any remedy needs to account for the interests and potential for conflict among the institution and its senior and junior investigators. The validity and any perception of validity should never be left open to question. Remedies should isolate research from economic pressure whenever possible.