Dr. Cézanne and the art of re(peat)search: Competing interests and obligations in clinical research

0Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Clinician researchers have a number of roles, each of which carries specific obligations. There are times when these obligations may be in competition (up to and including conflict) with each other. Using a narrative case study that describes a group of colleagues discussing their clinical department's participation in an industry-sponsored research protocol, we illustrate a number of the obligations faced by clinician researchers, and discuss how competing interests and obligations can lead to ethical problems. The case study is followed by a discussion of the effect of university-industry relations on competing interests and obligations in both clinical research and the role of the university, and a suggested framework that could be used to determine when university involvement in commercial research is ethically acceptable. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bluhm, R. L., Downie, J., & Nisker, J. (2010). Dr. Cézanne and the art of re(peat)search: Competing interests and obligations in clinical research. Accountability in Research, 17(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003708451

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free