With little fanfare, a small number of prominent academic scientists have decided to stop accepting payments from drug and device makers for speaking at meetings or for sitting on advisory boards. And while they maintain that it's important for for knowledgeable scientists to help companies draw up and interpret studies, any work they do will be pro bono,
The New York Times writes.As an example, the paper cites Peter Libby, chief of cardiovascular medicine at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who began receiving offers from drugmakers 25 years ago. And it seemed like a natural reflection of his growing reputation. He never owned stock in companies that he consulted for and always disclosed his consulting and speaking. So he thought he was protected from accusations of favoring any particular product because he consulted for so many companies. “I lived safely in that comfort zone for many years,” Libby tells the Times.
Then he spent four years working without pay to help create a public television series, “The Mysterious Human Heart,” which he thought was a worthy effort to educate the public about heart disease. He was proud and pleased when the series was broadcast in October, the Times writes, but to his dismay, bloggers attacked him and the other medical experts who appeared on the programs for having consulted for drug and device makers.
“They said we were biased. What I thought was four years of public service was impugned. That was a wake-up call for me. I was singed in the blogosphere,” he tells the Times, adding that he no longer accepts payments. “I want to speak out about the beliefs I am passionate about regarding prevention and medical advances that I think can reduce disease and save lives. It is not worth it to be under suspicion.”
Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, tells the paper he made a similar decision to protect his integrity when he began to wonder whether his industry associations were subtly affecting his objectivity. “The money offers started happening about 20 years ago, at the point that I became a visible person in the field,” Brownell tells the Times. “It is easy to offer subtle statements that would favor a drug. You do it for two reasons. You’ve got a money stream coming in, and you get to like the people who work for the companies. You feel like you’re on a team.”
Eric Winer, director of the Breast Oncology Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard, made his decision about a year ago, the Times writes. “Several times when I was interviewed for stories, after my comments there would be the obligatory phrase, ‘Dr. Winer has accepted honoraria,’ ” he tells the paper. “I was tired of having to see that...I am responding to a societal pressure. I just said enough is enough. And in truth, it has made my life simpler. I no longer debate can I take this, can I not take this. It is simpler when I talk to reporters. It is simpler when I give lectures...This is a complicated arena. And on some level I resent the fact that I had to make this decision.”
Source: The New York Times
5 Comments
This is an interesting array of responses - some docs denying inappropriate influence (and resenting the suggestion); others noting the ease with which one can act as "part of the team," almost without realizing it.
No doubt there is, indeed, a range, and different people will respond differently, probably having less to do with personal character than the particulars of the situation.
In general, policy makes it hard to sort things on this level. That's why, for example, the McDonald's coffee story (which is partly mythic) comes to stand for every lawsuit people don't like; Vioxx (or Paxil) comes to stand for every drug people don't like; etc. etc.
Singed by the Blogosphere!
I like it.
J
This is such a joke! Institutions like Harvard and Yale have been accepting bundles of money from the pharmaceutical companies for years. Research labs have been built, fellowships have been paid for, and many of thee guys have gotten rich by accepting "drug" money. Now they come out and say that they're not going to take it any more. After they've already raked in the piles of dough. If these guys and others are so innocent, then I think that they come out and indicate how much money that they or their institutions have accepted over the past 10 years? The NYT ought to back to these guys, as well as other prominent opinion leaders and ask them how much they received. Or the government should investigate this incredible conflict of interest that has been going on for decades. For example, with multiple statins on the market, the drug companies have been lining up for years to grab their share of the opinion leaders, lock them in, and keep them busy so that they have little time to do anything else. Many of these guys have been on retainer. Again, this is an incredible joke! All of the sudden, the academics are seeking to distance themselves from the companies because they don't want to be dragged into the fray, but like it or not they're already in the mess. Unless they can prove that they haven't accepted funds!
Nice try, docs. I lump you altogether. In my case, the bad guys are psychiatrists, as my son was killed with no warning by Eli Lilly's Zyprexa. Perhaps you would like to donate to the memorial we are planning to erect within a year or so in Washington in memory of the hundreds of thousands killed by prescription drugs. It might help with your permanent guilt. And the blogs are not going away.
[...] Some docs no longer taking industry money - With little fanfare, a small number of prominent academic scientists have decided to stop accepting payments from drug and device makers for speaking at meetings or for sitting on advisory boards. And while they maintain that it’s important for for knowledgeable scientists to help companies draw up and interpret studies, any work they do will be pro bono…more [...]