Article info
PDFOriginal research
Institutional conflict of interest: attempting to crack the deferiprone mystery
- Correspondence to Professor Arthur Schafer, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2, Canada; Arthur.schafer{at}umanitoba.ca
Citation
Institutional conflict of interest: attempting to crack the deferiprone mystery
Publication history
- Received April 9, 2019
- Revised December 12, 2019
- Accepted December 22, 2019
- First published January 8, 2020.
Online issue publication
July 26, 2021
Article Versions
- Previous version (8 January 2020).
- Previous version (16 January 2020).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics?
- Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy
- Introduction to The Olivieri symposium
- Thalassaemia major: the murky story of deferiprone
- Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri/Apotex Affair in Toronto
- Post-trial period surveillance for randomised controlled cardiovascular studies: submitted protocols, consent forms and the role of the ethics board
- Science, politics, ethics and the pandemic
- Effect of L-type calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) on myocardial iron deposition in patients with thalassaemia with moderate-to-severe myocardial iron deposition: protocol for a randomised, controlled trial
- Informing research participants of research results: analysis of Canadian university based research ethics board policies
- Trials sponsored by drug companies: review ordered