by the federal government or nonprofit organizations. Because of the close linkages between academic clinical researchers and industry in conducting clinical trials for pharmaceutical development, this type of research frequently has been regarded with disdain in the academic community.
One notable contrast between the cultures of industry and academia is the different approaches to performing research between the two. In academia, investigators are expected to conduct scholarly research in an area of investigation to gain recognition, climb the academic ladder, and, in many cases, achieve tenure. Thus, academic scientists frequently tend to work independently, or in small collaborative units, to achieve their scholarly goals. Whereas companies stifle the flow of proprietary information among competitors, research within companies frequently is undertaken by a team approach (testimony to the committee by Dr. Louis Sherwood of Merck Sharp & Dohme Laboratories, 1991). Teams involve not only a wide spectrum of scientists in various fields but also others who are actively involved in the development process, such as marketing and regulatory affairs personnel. The committee drew the corollary that clinical researchers in academia often combine the attributes of the independent scholarly achievement of the academic setting with the team approach common to corporate researchers.
Over the past decade substantial efforts have been made by federal, state, and local governments to foster greater and more effective ties between academic institutions and industry through mechanisms such as cooperative programs, research centers, and research parks (National Academy of Sciences, 1986). The globalization of research and the pressure of international competition have introduced a critical time dimension into the stream of product development (National Academy of Sciences, Government-University-Industry Roundtable, 1992; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 1992). Whereas the United States has enjoyed a competitive advantage in many high technology fields, other countries have developed effective means for the direct translation of new knowledge into commercial products. As inferred by a report by the Task Force on the Health of Research of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, it is likely that federal funding for research will become increasingly tied to societal goals (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 1992). The same emphasis has been echoed by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (1992).
As a result of these legislative forces and the initiative of the academic institutions and industry, many varieties of mechanisms for industry support of academic research have evolved (National Academy of Sciences, 1986; Price,