Predominant health research agendas, usually in line with existing financial incentives for obtaining lucrative research results, tend to focus on therapeutic and pharmacological intervention, prioritizing innovative therapies based on molecular biology and biotechnology approaches. However, commercial interests do not necessarily agree with existing public health priorities. The prevalence of health and biomedical research agendas often neglect not only the less lucrative diseases but also the study of the social and environmental determinants of health and disease, even when addressing these aspects could significantly improve population health at much lower costs. Some examples of absent studies in the health research agendas are the analysis of non-medical factors influencing health outcomes (social determinants of health), the analysis of the relationship between people and their environment (environmental health), or the evaluation of the socio-environmental factors that influence the deterioration of bodies and territories (such as the One Health approach).

Scientific advances such as the sequencing of the human genome have created great promise for improving human health by providing a greater understanding of disease biology and enabling the development of new drugs, diagnostics, and preventive services. However, the translation of research advances into clinical applications has so far been slower than anticipated. This is due in part to the complexity of the underlying biology as well as the cost and time it takes to develop a product. Pharmaceutical companies are adapting their business models to this new reality for product development by placing increasing emphasis on leveraging alliances, joint development efforts, early-phase research partnerships, and public-private partnerships. These collaborative efforts make it possible to identify new drug targets, enhance the understanding of the underlying basis of disease, discover novel indications for the use of already approved products, and develop biomarkers for disease outcomes or directed drug use. While the potential benefits of collaboration are significant, the fact that the relationships among development partners are often financial means that it is vital to ensure trust by identifying, disclosing, and managing any potential sources of conflict that could create bias in the research being performed together. Conflict of Interest and Medical Innovation is the summary of a workshop convened by the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health in June 2013 to explore the appropriate balance between identifying and managing conflicts of interest and advancing medical innovation. A wide range of stakeholders, including government officials, pharmaceutical company representatives, academic administrators and researchers, health care providers, medical ethicists, patient advocates, and consumers, were invited to present their perspectives and participate in discussions during the workshop. This report focuses on current conflict of interest policies and their effect on medical innovation in an effort to identify best practices and potential solutions for facilitating innovation while still ensuring scientific integrity and public trust.

Bringing together an international selection of leading scholars and representatives from patients’ organizations, this comprehensive collection explores the interaction between civil society groups and biomedical science, technology development, and research politics. This volume is an important reference for academics and researchers with an interest in the sociology of health and illness, science and technology studies, the sociology of knowledge or healthcare management and research, as well as medical researchers and those involved with health-related civil society organizations.

The new Agency for Health Care Policy and Research in the U.S. Public Health Service is funding a set of multidisciplinary groups called Patient Outcomes Research Teams (PORTs). Their purpose is to assess alternative treatments for medical conditions using a variety of outcome measures. In guiding insurance coverage, these PORTs are expected to wield considerable influence on medical practice and health policy. This book addresses possible threats to their credibility that might be based on real or apparent conflicts of interest, including both financial and other conflicts. It raises points to consider for the new agency, for PORTs and their institutions, for industry, for the health services research community, and for the U.S. Congress in avoiding and managing conflicts of interest.

"In the new 2016 version of the ethical guidelines, CIOMS provides answers to a number of pressing issues in research ethics. The Council does so by stressing the need for research having scientific and social value, by providing special guidelines for health-related research in low-resource settings, by detailing the provisions for involving vulnerable groups in research and for describing under what conditions biological samples and health-related data can be used for research."--Page 4 de la couverture.

"The Nation has lost sight of its public health goals and has allowed the system of public health to fall into 'disarray'," from The Future of Public Health. This startling book contains proposals for ensuring that public health service programs are efficient and effective enough to deal not only with the topics of today, but also with those of tomorrow. In addition, the authors make recommendations for core functions in public health assessment, policy development, and service assurances, and identify the level of government--federal, state, and local--at which these functions would best be handled.

In the realm of health care, privacy protections are needed to preserve patients' dignity and prevent possible harms. Ten years ago, to address these concerns as well as set guidelines for ethical health research, Congress called for a set of federal standards now known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In its 2009 report, Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information concludes that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not protect privacy as well as it should, and that it impedes important health research.

1. Introduction and methods of work.-- 2. Alcohol: equity and social determinants.-- 3. Cardiovascular disease: equity and social determinants.-- 4. Health and nutrition of children: equity and social determinants.-- 5. Diabetes: equity and social determinants.-- 6. Food safety: equity and social determinants.-- 7. Mental disorders: equity and social determinants.-- 8. Neglected tropical diseases: equity and social determinants.-- 9. Oral health: equity and social determinants.-- 10. Unintended pregnancy and pregnancy outcome: equity and social determinants.-- 11. Tobacco use: equity and social determinants.-- 12. Tuberculosis: the role of risk factors and social determinants.-- 13. Violence and unintentional injury: equity and social determinants.-- 14. Synergy for equity.

This study has emerged from an ongoing program of trilateral cooperation between WHO, WTO and WIPO. It responds to an increasing demand, particularly in developing countries, for strengthened capacity for informed policy-making in areas of intersection between health, trade and IP, focusing on access to and innovation of medicines and other medical technologies.