{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020926243567753, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006861063464837049, 'mean_word_length': 5.703448275862069, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Commentary: Collaboration between industry-based and academic epidemiologists.

The article by Neil Pearce in this issue, 'Corporate influences on epidemiology' 1 questions the role and practices of epidemiologists working with industry. The author argues that 'In many instances, academics have accepted industry funding which has not been acknowledged, and only the academic affiliations of the company-funded consultants have been listed'. He believes that this and other unethical practises are major threats to the integrity of epidemiological research. Although the article is addressed primarily to academic epidemiologists who consult with industry , there are a number of issues raised in the article that merit comment from those of us who practice epidemiology within a large, research-based pharmaceutical company. We agree with a number of points in the article. Authors need to clearly declare potential conflicts of interest, including funding sources. Professional organizations such as the International Epidemiological Association and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology have important roles to play in asserting positive principles and developing guidelines for good epidemiological practice 2 Results from epidemiological studies need to be interpreted with caution and should be considered in the context of other available information. We agree that empirical-based evidence is critical for optimal decision-making. Above all, we agree that scientists in companies, as well as in academic, governmental and non-profit organizations, should seek the truth. There are a number of points in the article that deserve further clarification, however. First, epidemiologic evidence is used in a variety of areas in the pharmaceutical industry, and drug safety is just one of them. At GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the majority of our epidemiology work actually focuses on activities during drug discovery and development, rather than during the post-marketing phase. Our goal is to bring evidence on disease and medical need, derived from observational data, to strengthen assumptions underpinning decision-making in drug development, from early research through to the late-stage development process. This includes validating biological targets, evaluating associations between phenotypes and genotypes, contributing observational based health data to inform clinical development programmes including clinical trial design and operations, and documenting disease burden and disease risk factors. We also put an emphasis on studying, proactively and systematically, the extent of comorbid conditions in diseases of interest, prior to marketing a drug, to enable us to rapidly assist in interpreting possible safety signals should they arise. Second, when we do undertake pharmacoepidemiol-ogy studies on our marketed products, we often conduct these studies with academic and other research …