Contributor(s)Rosolowski, Tacey Ann
KeywordsB: MD Anderson Product Development and IP; D: Ethics; B: Institutional Processes; B: Devices, Drugs, Procedures; B: MD Anderson Culture; B: Institutional Mission and Values; B: The Business of MD Anderson; B: The MD Anderson Brand, Reputation; D: On Texas and Texans; C: Healing, Hope, and the Promise of Research;
B: Institutional Processes; B: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center;
Full recordShow full item record
AbstractUsing hypothetical examples, Dr. Dmitrovsky explains mechanisms for addressing instances of perceived conflict of interest in the new era of research collaborations between academic institutions, pharma and the biotechnology industry. He first stresses MD Anderson’s responsibility to adhere to high standards of transparency. He notes that MD Anderson has examined best practices from other institutions. Next he stresses that actual instances of conflict of interest are addressed and resolved via mechanisms already in place. He then talks about the need to develop processes for addressing perceived conflict of interest. He gives two hypothetical examples of perceived institutional conflict of interest. The first involves involvement of an academic institution in developing a drug after it has contributed to the Phase One clinical trial to validate knowledge about the agent. In another example, he talks about how an institution might respond if it has commercialized intellectual property, which then generates revenue: he sketches how those profits could be used to avoid perceived conflict of interest. Dr. Dmitrovsky then notes how valuable research collaborations are to advancing MD Anderson’s mission, bringing down the cost of health care, and attracting new biotechology industries to the region.
DateJuly 7, 2015
Copyright/LicenseEthan Dmitrovsky, MD, Oral History Interview, July 7, 2015, Historical Resources Center, Research Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
the source. Gravity, Productivity and the Pattern of Production and TradeThe Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX Archives; James E. Anderson; James E. Anderson; James E. Anderson (2016-09-23)I am grateful to Christian Broda for helpful comments on the first version of this paper at the NBER
Xylitol for the prevention of acute otitis media episodes in children aged 2-4 years: Protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trialPersaud, N; Laupacis, A; Azarpazhooh, A; Birken, C; Hoch, JS; Isaranuwatchai, W; Maguire, JL; Mamdani, MM; Thorpe, K; Allen, C; et al. (eScholarship, University of California, 2018-08-01)© 2018 Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Introduction Xylitol (or 'birch sugar') is a naturally occurring sugar with antibacterial properties that has been used as a natural non-sugar sweetener in chewing gums, confectionery, toothpaste and medicines. In this preventative randomised trial, xylitol will be tested for the prevention of acute otitis media (AOM), a common and costly condition in young children. The primary outcome will be the incidence of AOM. Secondary outcomes will include upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) and dental caries. Methods and analysis This study will be a pragmatic, blinded (participant and parents, practitioners and analyst), two-armed superiority, placebo-controlled randomised trial with 1:1 allocation, stratified by clinical site. The trial will be conducted in the 11 primary care group practices participating in the TARGet Kids! research network in Canada. Eligible participants between the ages of 2-4 years will be randomly assigned to the intervention arm of regular xylitol syrup use or the control arm of regular sorbitol use for 6 months. We expect to recruit 236 participants, per treatment arm, to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in AOM episodes. AOM will be identified through chart review. The secondary outcomes of URTIs and dental caries will be identified through monthly phone calls with specified questions. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval from the Research Ethics Boards at the Hospital for Sick Children and St. Michael's Hospital has been obtained for this study and also for the TARGet Kids! research network. Results will be submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal and will be discussed with decision makers.