Clinical organ transplantation has evolved through advances in patient care
in parallel with investigations in associated biologies. It has developed
from a cottage industry to an important medical specialty driven increasing
ly by the availability of newer and more effective immunosuppressive drugs,
and dependent on consistently close collaborations between university-base
d clinical scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. Particularly during
the past decade, however, this industry has undergone striking changes, con
solidating into huge multi-national corporations, each competing for patien
ts, their doctors, and for support of the allied hospitals, Because of the
growth of "Big Pharma" the relationship between academia and industry has c
hanged. There have been many advantages to such mutually dependent interact
ions. A combination of university-based expertise and the specialized knowl
edge and resources of industry have produced important scientific gains in
drug development. Commercial sponsorship of applied research has been cruci
al. The orchestration of multicenter controlled clinical drug trials has pr
ovided invaluable information about the effectiveness of newer agents. But
there are also disadvantages of increasing concern. Indeed, the power of "B
ig Pharma" in many medical fields including transplantation is such that pr
esentation of data can be delayed, adverse results withheld, and individual
investigations hampered, Clinical trials may be protracted to stifle compe
tition. Monetary considerations may transcend common sense. Several measure
s to enhance the clinical relationship between the pharmaceutical industry
and those involved with organ transplantation are suggested, particularly t
he use of third party advisors in the production of clinical trials, suppor
t for more basic research and in the dissemination of results. In this way,
the increasingly problematic phenomenon of commercialization of the field
of transplantation can be tempered and controlled.