Background: The pharmaceutical industry has been responsible for major medical advances, but the industry has also been heavily criticized. Such criticisms, and associated regulatory responses, are no doubt often warranted, but do not provide a framework for those who wish to reason systematically about the moral dimensions of drug development. We set out to develop such a framework using Beauchamp and Childress's “four principles” as organizing categories. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study of people working in the “medical affairs” (...) departments of pharmaceutical companies to determine: (1) whether our data could meaningfully be organized under the headings of “autonomy,” “beneficence,” “nonmaleficence,” and “justice”; (2) how principles might be expressed in this particular commercial setting; and (3) if these principles are expressed, whether and how competing principles are balanced. We then critiqued these findings using existing normative theory. Results: Our interviews demonstrated that three of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles were salient to our participants: beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Within each of these principles, participants had two broad ethical orientations: an altruistic public focus (“other-ness”) and a commitment to their companies (“firm-ness”). Our participants also demonstrated efforts to balance these principles and highlighted the importance of phronesis (or practical wisdom) in balancing and enacting principles. Notably, however, our participants did not spontaneously emphasize the importance of autonomy. Conclusions: It is possible to use qualitative empirical research, together with normative analysis, to derive a framework for pharmaceutical ethics. We suggest that our framework would be useful for those who wish to reason ethically within, or in collaboration with, the pharmaceutical industry. (shrink)

Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing decision-making, yet conflicts of interest remain underreported, inconsistently described, and difficult to access. Initiatives aimed at improving the disclosure of researcher conflicts of interest are still in their infancy but represent a vital reform that must be addressed before potential biases associated with conflicts of interest can be mitigated and (...) trust in the impartiality of clinical evidence restored. In this review, we examine the prevalence of conflicts of interest, evidence of the effects that disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest have had on the reporting of clinical evidence, and the emerging approaches for improving the completeness and consistency of disclosures. Through this review of emerging technologies, we recognize a growing interest in publicly accessible registries for researcher conflicts of interest and propose five desiderata aimed at maximizing the value of such registries: mandates for ensuring that researchers keep their records up to date; transparent records that are made available to the public; interoperability to allow researchers, bibliographic databases, and institutions to interact with the registry; a consistent taxonomy for describing different classes of conflicts of interest; and the ability to automatically generate conflicts of interest statements for use in published articles. (shrink)