1. bookVolume 3 (2019): Issue 1-2 (December 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2459-7465
First Published
20 Jun 2020
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Privatization of Science – A Silent Phenomenon

Published Online: 02 Dec 2020
Volume & Issue: Volume 3 (2019) - Issue 1-2 (December 2019)
Page range: 239 - 254
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2459-7465
First Published
20 Jun 2020
Publication timeframe
1 time per year
Languages
English

1. $95 billion a year spent on medical research (2005). The Associated Press. URL: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9407342/ns/health-health_care/t/billion-year-spent-medical-research/#.WnA_TWnwbIU (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

2. A Serbian Sokal? Authors spoof pub with Ron Jeremy and Michael Jackson references. (2013) Retraction Watch. URL: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/09/23/a-serbian-sokal-authors-spoof-pub-with-ron-jeremy-and-michael-jackson-references/ (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

3. Angell, M. (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Search in Google Scholar

4. Bach, B. (2014) The end of antibiotics? Researchers warn of critical shortages. Scope. URL: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/10/13/the-end-of-antibiotics-researchers-warn-of-critical-shortages/ (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

5. Barić, H. et al. (2017) Why scholarly publishing might be a bubble. Croat Med J, 58, p. 1-3.10.3325/cmj.2017.58.1Search in Google Scholar

6. Bekelman, JE.; Li, Y.; Gross, CP. (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflict of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA, 289, p. 454-465.10.1001/jama.289.4.454Search in Google Scholar

7. Bodenheimer, T. (2000) Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med, 342, p. 1539-1544.10.1056/NEJM200005183422024Search in Google Scholar

8. Bok, D. (2004) Universities in the marketplace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

9. Borrell, B. (2009) A medical madoff: anesthesiologist faked data in 21 studies. Scientific American. URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoffanesthestesiologist-faked-data/ (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

10. Bowman, JD. (2014) Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ, 78, p. 176.10.5688/ajpe7810176Search in Google Scholar

11. Collier, R. (2009) Medical literature, made to order. CMAJ, 181, p. 254-256.10.1503/cmaj.091334Search in Google Scholar

12. Cranney, A. et al. (2002) IX: Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev, 23, p. 570-578.10.1210/er.2001-9002Search in Google Scholar

13. Dane indicted for defrauding CDC (2011). Atlanta Business Chronicle. URL: https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/04/13/dane-indicted-for-defraudingcdc.html (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

14. Dorsey, ER. et al. (2009) Funding of U.S. biomedical research and new drug approvals across therapeutic areas. PLoS One, 4, e7015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007015 (2019-10-4)10.1371/journal.pone.0007015Search in Google Scholar

15. Dorsey, ER. et al. (2010) Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008. JAMA, 303, p. 137-143.10.1001/jama.2009.1987Search in Google Scholar

16. Evans, I. et al. (2011) Gdje su dokazi? Zagreb: Profil knjiga.Search in Google Scholar

17. Every-Palmer, S.; Howick J. (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract, 20, p. 908-914.10.1111/jep.12147Search in Google Scholar

18. Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL. (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med, 125, p. 605-613.10.7326/0003-4819-125-7-199610010-00011Search in Google Scholar

19. Gajski, L. (2009) Lijekovi ili priča o obmani. Zagreb: Pergamena.Search in Google Scholar

20. Gajski, L. (2012) Farmaceutska industrija i sukob interesa u medicini. In: Šarić, M., Kovačić, L. (eds.) Zdravstvo u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, p. 87-99.Search in Google Scholar

21. Gajski, L. (2014) Medical science serving corporate interests. In: Schweidler, W., Zeidler, KW. (eds.) Bioethik und Bildung. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, p. 155-174.Search in Google Scholar

22. Gajski, L. (2015) Što se dogodilo s „Prvo ne škoditi“? H-alter. URL: http://halter.org/vijesti/sto-se-dogodilo-s-prvo-ne-skoditi (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

23. Goldacre, B. (2008) Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.Search in Google Scholar

24. Gøtzsche, P. (2013) Deadly medicines and organized crime. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Search in Google Scholar

25. Groeger, L. (2014) Big Pharma’s big fines. ProPublica. URL: http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

26. Healy, D. (2001) The dilemmas posed by new and fashionable treatments. Adv Psychiatr Treat, 7, p. 322-327.10.1192/apt.7.5.322Search in Google Scholar

27. Healy, D. (2003) Is academic psychiatry for sale? Br J Psychiatry, 182, p. 388-390.Search in Google Scholar

28. Hewitt, C. et al. (2005) Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ, 330, p. 1057-1058.10.1136/bmj.38413.576713.AESearch in Google Scholar

29. Horton, R. (2015) Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? Lancet, 385, p. 1380.Search in Google Scholar

30. Husten, L. (2013) How heart guidelines based on disgraced research may have caused thousands of deaths. Forbes. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2013/07/31/european-heart-guidelines-based-on-disgraced-research-may-have-caused-thousands-of-deaths/#7c392fca2e33 (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

31. Ioannidis, JP. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 (2019-10-3)10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124Search in Google Scholar

32. Ioannidis, JP. (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 94, p. 485-514.10.1111/1468-0009.12210Search in Google Scholar

33. Jahnke, A. (2015) Who picks the tab for science? For half a century, the government funded research. Times are changing. Boston University, URL: http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/ (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

34. Jochmann, N. et al. (2005) Female specific aspects in the pharmacotherapy of chronic cardiovascular diseases. Eur Heart J, 26, p. 1585-1595.10.1093/eurheartj/ehi397Search in Google Scholar

35. Johansen, HK.; Gøtzsche, PC. (1999) Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA, 282, p. 1752-1759.10.1001/jama.282.18.1752Search in Google Scholar

36. Journal of Contradicting Results in Science. URL: http://www.jcrsci.org/browse/index.php/jcrsci/ (2018-1-21)Search in Google Scholar

37. Jüni, P.; Rutjes, AWS.; Dieppe, PA. (2002) Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? BMJ, 324, p. 1287-1288.Search in Google Scholar

38. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B,; Wilkinson, RG., ed. (1999) The Society and Population Health Reader: Income inequality and health. New York: New Press.Search in Google Scholar

39. Kennedy, JV. (2012) The sources and uses of U.S. science funding. The New Atlantis, 36. URL: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

40. Kidwell, CS. et al. (2001) Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century. Stroke, 32, p. 1349-1359.10.1161/01.STR.32.6.1349Search in Google Scholar

41. Kirsch, I. et al. (2002) The Emperor´s new drugs: an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 23. URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228550299_The_Emperor’s_New_Drugs_An_Analysis_of_Antidepressant_Medication_Data_Submitted_to_the_US_Food_and_Drug_Administration (2019-10-3)10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.523aSearch in Google Scholar

42. Krimsky, Sh. (2004) Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

43. Lang, T. (2004) Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. Croat Med J, 45, p. 361-370.Search in Google Scholar

44. Lariviere, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P. (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10, e0127502. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (2019-10-4)10.1371/journal.pone.0127502Search in Google Scholar

45. Lesser, LI. et al. (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med, 4, e5. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005 (2019-10-3)10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005Search in Google Scholar

46. Lexchin, J. et al. (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326, p. 1167-1170.10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167Search in Google Scholar

47. Lundh, A. et al. (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, MR000033. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28207928 (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

48. Mandrola, JM. (2016) The best decision may not be what the guidelines say. Medscape. URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860576?nlid=102616_3863&src=WNL_mdplsfeat_160322_mscpedit_card&uac=98463AJ&spon=2&impID=1032383&faf=1 (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

49. Marcus, A., Oransky, I. (2015) How the biggest fabricator in science got caught. Nautilus. URL: http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/how-the-biggest-fabricator-in-science-got-caught (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

50. McGarity, TO., Wagner, W. (2008) Bending science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

51. Milloy, S. (2001) Junk science judo. Washington: Cato Institute.Search in Google Scholar

52. Nestle, M. (2016) Another five industry-funded studies with sponsor-favorable results. The score: 145/12. Food Politics. URL: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/03/another-five-industry-funded-studies-with-sponsor-favorable-results-the-score-14512/ (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

53. Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean” (2014). URL: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/03/nobel-prize-winner-calls-peer-review-very-distorted-completely-corrupt-and-simply-a-regression-to-the-mean/ (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

54. Pheage, T. (2016-2017) Dying from lack of medicines. Africa Renewal. URL: http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2016-march-2017/dying-lack-medicines (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

55. R&D expenditure (2017). Eurostat. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure (2018-01-15)Search in Google Scholar

56. Reillon, V. (2015) European Parliament Horizon 2020 budget and implementation. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/571312/EPRS_IDA%282015%29571312_EN.pdf (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

57. Retraction Watch. URL: http://retractionwatch.com/ (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

58. Ribić, V., Kroflin, M. (2016) Što nam je trenutno važnije – vojska ili znanost? URL: http://www.nsz.hr/analize-i-istrazivanja/programski-dokumenti-i-analize/sto-nam-jetrenutno-vaznije-vojska-ili-znanost/ (2019-10-3)Search in Google Scholar

59. Rochon, PA. (1998) The evaluation of clinical trials: inclusion and representation. CMAJ, 159, p. 1373-1374.Search in Google Scholar

60. Rosenberg, SA. (1996) Secrecy in medical research. N Engl J Med, 334, p. 392-394.10.1056/NEJM199602083340610Search in Google Scholar

61. Schafer, A. (2004) Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis-learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics, 30, p. 8-24.10.1136/jme.2003.005702Search in Google Scholar

62. Schekman, R. (2013) How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science (2019-10-4)Search in Google Scholar

63. Scherer, RW., Langenberg, P., von Elm, E. (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, MR000005. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443628 (2019-10-3)10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3Search in Google Scholar

64. Sindikat visokog obrazovanja i znanosti Akademska solidarnost. (2012) Deklaracija o znanosti i visokom obrazovanju. Zagreb: Akademska solidarnost.Search in Google Scholar

65. Smith, R. (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PloS Med, 2, e138. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138 (2019-10-4)10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138Search in Google Scholar

66. Temple, R. (1999) Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA, 282, p. 790-795.Search in Google Scholar

67. Vera-Badillo, FE. et al. (2013) Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 24, p. 1238-1244.10.1093/annonc/mds636Search in Google Scholar

68. Wakefield, A. (2011) Callous disregard. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

69. Welch, HG., Schwartz, L., Woloshin, S. (2012) Overdiagnosed. Boston: Beacon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo