When researchers receive money from pharmaceutic company , their trials are more likely to bring forth favorable effect , a review of almost 200 published report has found . Although the influence of money on trials has long been suspected , quantitative evidence has been scarce . The review also has a example for faultfinder who think corporate involvement means all drug trials are shady , as many studies were also apparently behave without preconception .

To see how much remainder funding make , Oregon Health and Science University studentRosa Ahnpicked a random sample of 195 drug trial whose results were publish in 2013 , and investigate the independence of the researchers involved . Attempts to examine industry influence have been done before , but most have not differentiated between direct funding for a study and other fiscal connections to researchers . Ahn looked at each independently .

Two - thirds of trial had one or more principal investigators who had received money from the pharmaceutical manufacture , although this could be as small as getting change of location expenses pay or as enceinte as owning stock in the company whose drug was being tested . Five percent held a patent of invention over the drug they were investigating .

More than three - one-quarter of trial with incontrovertible results had a principal investigator with fiscal connections to the industry , while just 49 percent of those that raise damaging results had such conflicts of interest .

Ahn ’s finding have been published in theBritish Medical Journal . The newspaper publisher observe that there are other potential explanations for the raw datum besides researcher diagonal . For example , it ’s possible that fiscal connections are more usual at a finical study form , which might in turning be one where positively charged effect are more common .

However , Ahn and her co - author controlled for a range of factors they recollect might have influenced the information and the results barely budged   – the presence of a fiscal tie halved the opportunity of a electronegative final result being cover .

The situation could even be worse than Ahn ’s answer advise , since not all fiscal influence is break . The newspaper ’s authors made exertion to uncover undisclosed financial connections and found 34 case where a principal police detective die to reveal money they had received , but it is likely additional cases were lack .

Intriguingly , while the police detective ' fiscal ties made a difference , existent funding from industry did n’t , at least in this sample . Trials that were publicly funded were as likely to produce positive results as those where a company put up the cash .

In 2002 , 15.5 per centum of scientists involved in drug trials admittedin a surveyto changing the design , or even the results , of their discipline to meet pressure from their paymaster .

In alinked editorial , Dr Andreas Lundh of the University of Southern Denmark suggests that insufficient blinding , where player have a good idea of who is on the placebo and who is take the trial drug , could be contort results . “ Perhaps authors with financial ties are more unforced to accept such practices because of commercial pressure , ” Lundh speculates . “ However , the empirical evidence for this account is lacking . ”

Lundh proposes that peer - reviewed journals should require increased foil about scientists ' financial ties before publication , something some journal already do .