↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Patients’ health or company profits? The commercialisation of academic research
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2003
DOI 10.1007/s11948-003-0017-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy F. Olivieri

Abstract

This paper is a personal account of the events associated with the author's work at the University of Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children on a drug, deferiprone, for the treatment of thalassaemia. Trials of the drug were sponsored by the Canadian Medical Research Council and a drug company which would have been able, had the trials been successful, to seek regulatory approval to market the drug. When evidence emerged that deferiprone might be inadequately effective in a substantial proportion of patients, the drug company issued legal threats when the author proposed informing her patients and the scientific community. Until protests were made by international authorities in her field of research, the hospital and university did not adequately support the author's academic freedom and responsibilities as a medical practitioner. It is argued that underlying cause of this, and of other similar cases, is the political philosophy which is driving the commercialisation of universities and bringing about the deregulation of drug approval procedures. Together these changes constitute a serious threat to the public good.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
New Zealand 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Student > Master 8 16%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Social Sciences 8 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,290,310
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#194
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,930
of 50,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 50,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them