Is Thre a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335067/

Is there a relationship between the sponsorship of research projects and the quality of their results?

Yes.  You get what you pay for. If you do not pay much money for something, it is probably of poor quality.; If you pay well for something, it is more likely to be of good quality.

I have no empirical data but my guees is 'biased'. Yesterday the director of one of the CSIC institutes was fired because he made a (scientific) report against a political decision favouring a mining company

R&D for the future: The need for theoretical and conceptual product design in anticipation of the probable availability of a technology. Accelerating factors and the high risk to be left behind make mandatory the research and development of new products and techniques to start 10 or even 20 years before the possibility to build an experimental prototype. Countries with a patent law that is not capable of coping with those challenges will endanger their future as players in modern economic activities. Government and venture capital will invest producing a partial biasing in the research road map. Return on investment is becoming the new big boss. 

Dear Franz Barjak and All,

In the US, when researchers talk about NIH [National Institutes of Health] everyone listens [government funded sponsor or research] and has great respect because we all know or believe that they follow the rules by 'letter' [by the book]. We expect that drug companies or will do the same, but  obviously this is not the case or we would not have them being sued for not reporting certain things. As far as what the FDA does: it goes in waves! Sometimes they are true watch dogs and at other times they ignore or pass what should not be ignored or passed. For the most part I happen to believe that FDA was formed and still is doing its best to protect the health of US people against 'bad' drugs and to put in place the methods to get  SAFE and EFFECTIVE drugs on the market. But am I being fooled?

You may be interested in the opinions of a few people [below] who have a great number of years of experience in Big Pharma and/or fighting Big Pharma, and who believe all of Big Pharma are liars and corrupt, including a couple of whistleblowers: 

1.  The following OPINION article is from a 2004 online magazine:                      Pharmaceutical company admits to lying about the health risks of its drugs

 Monday, July 26, 2004

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Editor of NaturalNews.com 

The SAME author writes EIGHT years LATER in 2012 another Article:

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record

Monday, July 09, 2012

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com 

Tags: Glaxo, Merck, fraud

ONLY this time it is a REPORT of the FACTS that he presents in the following OBJECTIVE article that he also writes: www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html#ixzz3nN0jDZJp

2. I am asking you to listen to a few WHISTLE BLOWERS especially one who admits his wrongs including bribing the Swedish government to approve of a specific drug [watch the video to know which one!!!] .....Dr. John Rengen Virapen admits to having dirty hands just as the large drug companies do...Has changed his life around calls the Drug companies /Pharma Industry CRIMINALS....Exposes much that he has done. but in this presentation he also says he wrote all the bad things he has done in the pharma industry in his book for sale !  

WATCH this VIDEO! [7+ minutes]                                                                                  Former Eli Lilly Pharma exec turned Whistleblower !!!                                          [he is not fond of psychiatrists]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-8ItXRMPfA&list=PL596086711DBB7A22&index=10

The long version of the above is located at the following link which has 4 parts to one video of about 10 minutes each:                     https://1phil4everyill.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/14-dr-john-rengen-virapen-blows-the-whistle-on-his-former-big-pharma-employer 

Dr. John Rengen Virapen  claims that the PRESS and Governments protect the Pharma Industry....and that corruption is rampant. 

Dr. John Rengen Virapen mentions in the video he has a book for sale in which he writes about he many more 'bad' deeds he has committed working for the Big Pharma and why he is now telling all..... So one must deduce that he is making money off of his audience and that may be his motivation to come clean of his actions at great risk of a law suit. But he intimates that he wants the consumers to question and have an outcry, and for young people to take care of yourselves. 

3. Another speaker at the same meeting isDr. Rima Laibow: Here is a video "Doctors Are Being Assassinated For Taking On Big Pharma Corruption!" speaks of several doctors, including: James Jeffrey "Jeff" Bradstreet (July 6, 1954 – June 19, 2015) who spoke out against Big Pharma and "vaccine medicine" as well as many scientists and researchers. She believes that vaccines did not eradicate Polio or Small pox. Claims the NAME of the virus was changed and the disease exists.  The goal post was 'moved' or they lied.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27LSSR2zSkg

If you are looking for her India Paper here is the link, the one on the vido does not work:  drrimatruthreports.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-All-India-Medical-Congress-Paper.020415.pdf

A short article:

4. Exposing Fraud and Corruption in Drug Industry                                                      Eamon Javers | @EamonJavers

Tuesday, 8 Feb 2011                                                              www.cnbc.com/id/41257952

In which the following is written:

"Every single one of the top 20 biggest False Claims Act lawsuit settlements has been health care related.

These are the biggest settlements under the law:

Top Three Whistleblower Settlements

Pfizer $2.3 Billion

September 2009

Tenet $900 Million

July 2006

GlaxoSmithKline $750 Million

October 2010"

5. My opinion:

I believe MOST employees of ALL drug companies and most clinical trial researchers WANT to help humans treat and cure disease, and that they believe that their work will help mankind. I do believe some people 'go astray' due to the money and perks of being in a drug company, competition and sales to become corrupt. I believe corruption breeds corruption.

I also believe that many drugs are useful and helpful. I do not believe that all drugs are bad. However perhaps if you need to listen to someone who believes that [Dr. John Rengen Virapen and/or Dr. Rima Laibow] you may believe this. I do appreciate her reference to Informed Consent by ICH/GCP should supercede the Agenda  21.  

 But I also believe that some people are also a bit of extremists, in their beliefs. They are certainly entitled to these beliefs. And I believe I [should] have the right to hear what they have to say whether I decide to believe what they have said or not. 

I think there are the good and the bad, the corrupt and the altruist humanitarians who exist at the same time at opposite poles of research projects, sponsorship, and quality control.

Now let's consider the marvels of medicine too! ! Is there such a thread or discussion on RG?

While I am providing these points of views, which may shock you [or not] I do not subscribe to them per se. BUT I have an open mind.  I suppose I am a bit more positive but I do believe that corruption in Big Pharma exists, as well as beneficial triumphs.

Respectfully to ALL,

Jeanetta Mastron

www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html#ixzz3nN0jDZJp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-8ItXRMPfA&list=PL596086711DBB7A22&index=10

https://1phil4everyill.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/14-dr-john-rengen-virapen-blows-the-whistle-on-his-former-big-pharma-employer

www.cnbc.com/id/41257952

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27LSSR2zSkg

drrimatruthreports.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-All-India-Medical-Congress-Paper.020415.pdf

There can be several possibilities:

Agree with Prof. Isidro F. Aguillo. Everything is biased and it affects the quality of the research. Always think of the benefits, that's the mental set of the Project Provider and science takes time to give the good result.

 I believe there is a relationship between the sponsorship of research projects and the production of knowledge (a measure of quality).  Have a look at this paper.  (But when it comes to the research conducted by BigPharma, I dare not make the same guess.)

"This article examines the relationship between Research & Development (R&D) funding and the production of knowledge by academic chemists. Using articles published, either raw counts or adjusted for quality, we find a strong, positive causal effect of funding on knowledge production. This effect is similar across subsets of universities, suggesting a relatively efficient allocation of R&D funds."

Article The Effects of Research & Development Funding on Scientific ...

It is a direct influnce! And the influence on "scientific" journal editor, too!

Sponsors of research projects are not charity groups.They usually sponsor to get advantage for themselves. In chemistry, a substance (which donates a pair of electrons to a positive species) will bond the species to it. In life, the similarity holds (donation leads to linking) & consequently, a bias is expected in the outcome or output.

I go with Niranjan Biswal...... In many cases i have also faced the same.

When one applies to ANY funding agent - they are working under the agenda set by that agent. What gets funded, how it is researched, how findings are cast or how they are set aside are biased by the agenda of those that provide the funds. I think the big difference often times is that related to rigor and what counts as evidence - at least in the domain of education, an applied science.

This is a stupid question with an obvious answer. Ask Francisco Fiorovanti

Should be with a fewer articles supporting that empirically , the sponsors have there prerequisite to sponsor any project or research so if 

It does. No company is going to finance research to eventually publish results that might affect its business. If results are not of their conveniece, they will kindly ask you not to 'include them' in the paper. 

Dear Franz, the issue is well addressed in this BMJ article: Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B. & Clark, O. (2003). “Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review”, in BMJ, v.326(7400):1167-1170. Extended 10-page version available online. URL:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/326/7400/1167?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=lexchin&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Yes, usually the two actions are interconnected, but not necessary in the benefit of science, but rather in the benefit of some intereses.

I think that the difference may lie in whether the sponsor is supporting basic or applied research. Applied research by definition should be immediately usable and hence there is a real life check on its quality.

Quality of research versus funding body?

Over the last 50 plus years I have been involved in the founding and work of national research institutes in three countries. The key variable from their perspective is the priority of the research.  Conferences were held across all disciplines and within fields to establish plans fort a number of years that laid out research priorities. 

Research needs were then advertised and research teams requested to make concrete proposals to address a priority problem. The next most important variable was the quality of the researcher or the research team.

The success or failure of the research project was then related to the level of resources.  The resources available impinged on the research design, the amount of time to be devoted to the research project, the variety of research methods to be employed, and the overall cost.

Research teams were then autonomous in their operation, but had to conform to a standardized system of reporting on their progress, interim results, and financial reports.  

I also chaired university research committees where the funds available were less. Comparing the two, with hindsight, the national bodies were better endowed and perhaps therefore were more effective in influencing (in the manner briefly described) outcomes. But I know of no study that compared the two in a rigorous manner. 

Is Thre a Relationship between Research Sponsorship and Publication Impact?: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335067/

Is there a relationship between the sponsorship of research projects and the quality of their results?

Yes.  You get what you pay for. If you do not pay much money for something, it is probably of poor quality.; If you pay well for something, it is more likely to be of good quality.

I think it depends on the type of research. Is it a publish, patent or commercial pursuit or a long term project that is likely to outlive you? The former may require more funding in the short term while the latter depends on adequate infrastructure (personnel and materials) over a long time. The two often interact to develop knowledge but exploitation of one by the other retards development.

Sponsorship of research projects affects the process quality, as the researcher wears the cap of administrator to control budgets and prune project expenses.

Balancing of economics causes the problems, there should be a realistic budget proposal which should be sanctioned with allowances (audit-able)  for some extensible and unavoidable "actual's reimbursable".