Discussion Board 6 - BTC 6210
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Northeastern University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6210
Subject
Medicine
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by DoctorLightning11754
The situation involving Dr. Howard Benson and Magnus University Hospital presents several potential conflicts of interest that need to be carefully addressed to ensure ethical conduct and the well-being of patients involved in the clinical trial. Firstly Dr. Benson's dual roles as the developer of the drug and a sub-investigator in the clinical trial pose a significant conflict. His personal gain from the success of the drug may influence his judgment and decisions regarding patient care and trial outcomes. This conflict jeopardizes the integrity of the research and the safety of the patients involved. To address this conflict, Magnus University should implement strict protocols and guidelines for managing conflicts of interest among researchers involved in clinical trials. Dr. Benson should disclose his financial interests in the drug's development, and an independent oversight committee should monitor his actions throughout the trial to ensure that patient safety and well-being remain the top priorities (Akhtar & Syeda, 2021).
There is a risk that Dr. Benson may exert pressure on other doctors within Magnus University Hospital to participate in the clinical trial, potentially disrupting the hospital's management and service order. This pressure could compromise the voluntary nature of participation and lead to biased recruitment practices. Magnus University should implement a culture of transparency and independence among its medical staff
(McNair, 2022). All physicians should receive training on ethical conduct in research and be made aware of their rights to refuse participation in trials without fear of reprisal. Additionally, the hospital administration should closely monitor recruitment practices and intervene if any excessive pressure is observed.
To effectively manage these conflicts of interest, the university should establish a dedicated committee tasked with evaluating and addressing individual and institutional conflicts of interest related to research activities. This committee should consist of representatives from various disciplines, including medicine, ethics, and administration, to ensure comprehensive oversight. It's important to involve other hospital personnel, including physicians, nurses, and administrators, in the discussion and decision-making process regarding Dr. Benson's involvement in the clinical trial (Guiding Principles for Ethical Research, 2016). Transparent communication and collaboration among all stakeholders will help identify and address potential conflicts early on, promoting a culture of accountability and ethical conduct.
References
Akhtar, & Syeda, S. H. (2021). Conflict management Styles as Predictors of Organizational Commitment in University Teachers - ProQuest. ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/77e791bb485aab9aa77d936a816c3374/1?cbl=136244&pq-
origsite=gscholar
Guiding principles for ethical research. (2016, March 16). National Institutes of Health (NIH). https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-research-trials-you/guiding-principles-
ethical-research
McNair, L. (2022). Ethical and regulatory oversight of clinical research: The role of the Institutional Review Board. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 247(7), 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/15353702221078216
Secondary Response 1
The discussion focuses on the conflict of interest surrounding Dr. Betty Dong's research project involving Synthroid and generic thyroid medications. It effectively highlights the influence of secondary interests, such as financial gain and career advancement, on the scientific integrity of the study. The discussion could benefit from a deeper exploration of the ethical implications surrounding Dr. Dong's actions and decisions. While the conflict of interest arising from the funding provided by Boots Pharmaceuticals is clear, there could be more discussion on Dr. Dong's responsibilities as a researcher and the potential consequences of her compliance with the company's demands. For instance, was there any ethical obligation for Dr. Dong to resist the company's attempts to suppress the study's findings, even if it meant jeopardizing her professional relationship with Boots Pharmaceuticals (Lo & Field, 2009).
The discussion could be strengthened by addressing potential biases in the presentation of information. While the discussion acknowledges the conflict of interest, it primarily focuses on the actions of Boots Pharmaceuticals, potentially overlooking any missteps or ethical lapses on Dr. Dong's part. A more balanced analysis that considers all parties involved would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. There could be more exploration of the wider implications of conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical research. How common are such conflicts in the industry, and what measures can be taken
to mitigate their impact on scientific integrity. By addressing these questions, the discussion could provide valuable insights into the challenges facing modern medical research and potential strategies for improvement (Shmerling, 2018).
References
Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. In National Academies Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.17226/12598
Shmerling, R. H., MD. (2018, October 1). Conflict of interest in medicine. Harvard Health. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/conflict-of-interest-in-medicine-2018100114940
Secondary response 2 The discussion presents an overview of the case involving Dr. David Kern and Microfiber’s Inc., highlighting the conflicts that arose due to corporate interests, legal agreements, and institutional responses. The discussion mentions the importance of academic freedom, it could dig deeper into the implications of its infringement. Exploring how limitations on academic freedom not only suppresses individual researchers but also inhibit scientific progress and public welfare would provide a better understanding. The discussion briefly touches upon the challenges in balancing various interests but does not fully explore potential solutions or strategies to address these challenges. Offering insights into frameworks for resolving conflicts of interest and promoting transparency in academic-industry collaborations would improve the discussion. Although the case highlights the risks of corporate interference in research, it could benefit from discussing real-world examples or studies that illustrate the extent of such interference and its consequences on scientific integrity and public trust. While the importance of institutional support is acknowledged, the discussion could elaborate on specific actions institutions can take to better protect researchers facing similar challenges in the future. Providing
concrete recommendations or best practices for fostering a supportive academic environment would offer practical insights for academic institutions and policymakers (Korn, 2000).
Reference Korn, D. (2000). Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA, 284(17), 2234. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.17.2234
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help