title: More regulation of industry-supported biomedical research: are we asking the right questions?
abstract: Industry-sponsored biomedical research is under the microscope. In an attempt to achieve just results in extraordinary cases, critics are suggesting regulations that would pervert the U.S. clinical trial process. However, the arguments made to justify such regulation are weak at best. All the proposals to regulate industry sponsorship of clinical trials that we surveyed (over a hundred articles and ten books, most written in the past decade) suffer from some form of fallacious reasoning. In the interest of advocating sound policy, this article points out some of the most common reasoning errors found in the literature on financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials.
authors.affiliation: Center for Ethical Solutions, Waterford, Virginia, USA.
authors.forename: Sigrid
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fry-Revere
authors.forename: David Bjorn
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Malmstrom
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016265:Conflict of Interest / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D017277:Drug Approval / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004345:Drug Industry / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D011050:Policy Making; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States