naidipuz It is not BCG that is dropping participation, but NYU Langone.   It likely had no major investment from the manufacturers of BCG anyway, Organon Teknica Corp.    If there is an investment in the use of BCG vaccine, it is likely from the Federal Government and from a Diabetic Foundation associated with the ADA or some other organization.NYU would have had a signed agreement with whoever was underwriting the protocol, but the investment of low-profit agents repurposed is never terribly high to begin with.  Investigators associated with such a study would have likely been doing so on an altruistic basis.What you should understand is that researchers publish for tenure status.   Articles generate advancement in your field and generate possible demand for your services at a higher position elsewhere.   Money comes from Big Pharma for certain, but much goes to hiring statisticians or support staff needed to process patients or to outreach workers who often do phone follow up or other nonclinical services.High-cost reimbursement would probably be seen as a further conflict of interest in the study.   Even without this there is often a bias of a study provider to give a good report to the party sponsoring the research even with middling financial support, and I would see this as going to the institution and not the researcher.

naidipuz It is not BCG that is dropping participation, but NYU Langone.   It likely had no major investment from the manufacturers of BCG anyway, Organon Teknica Corp.    If there is an investment in the use of BCG vaccine, it is likely from the Federal Government and from a Diabetic Foundation associated with the ADA or some other organization.NYU would have had a signed agreement with whoever was underwriting the protocol, but the investment of low-profit agents repurposed is never terribly high to begin with.  Investigators associated with such a study would have likely been doing so on an altruistic basis.What you should understand is that researchers publish for tenure status.   Articles generate advancement in your field and generate possible demand for your services at a higher position elsewhere.   Money comes from Big Pharma for certain, but much goes to hiring statisticians or support staff needed to process patients or to outreach workers who often do phone follow up or other nonclinical services.High-cost reimbursement would probably be seen as a further conflict of interest in the study.   Even without this there is often a bias of a study provider to give a good report to the party sponsoring the research even with middling financial support, and I would see this as going to the institution and not the researcher.

user
no
assistant