Posted by seldomseen on October 5, 2008, at 13:09:18
In reply to Re: What SHOULD (IMO) be closely monitored » seldomseen, posted by Nadezda on October 5, 2008, at 12:09:20
I think it's appropriate to monitor both, because either can cause conflict of interest problems.. Maybe there's nothing that can be done about unconscious bias-- because at least researchers may be more aware of how this bias may be affecting their work.
**** It's important to note here that the investigators and the universities are paid regardless of the results of the trial.****
What's most troubling in these stories is the direct lying to institutions that are supposed to monitor and the violation of rules that represent some (probably not very intrusive) oversight. True, it may be an annoying bit of paperwork and some jumping through hoops-- but there is the overall problem that researchers do impose their biases in interpreting data.
****True, there should be no direct lying to institutions, the NIH or anyone. However, in terms of the company funded trials, the data interpretation usually comes largely from the company and not the investigator. However, this largely depends on the contract that university entered into with the company. The concept of "Data ownership" is negotiated and most universities insist on being given some ownership of the data in order to prevent the results from being misinterpreted.*****
And how do you distinguish Nemeroff from Biederman, who was actively involved in promoting the practice of giving antipsychotics to children--especially for pediatric bipolar disease-- and who earned over $1.6 (a figure which itself may be an understatement) from drug companies--while reporting very little? for example, in one year, he earned over $58,000 from Johnson & Johnson, and reported no earnings; when asked to recheck this, he reported $3,000. is he a "visionary" or a shill for the company? How can you tell?
****You do have to ask questions about where the income is coming from. Is it from monies earned for doing trials, consultations, or is he involved in another way with the company? Following the money trail can lead to misconduct, or it can lead to progress. I'm not saying don't ask where the money is coming from.*******
I understand Seldom's point about the need for the connections between academics and drug research, but there also needs to be some regulation of how these connections affect the shape and outcomes in research.****I think involving academics definately affects the shape of research, but not the outcome (or those cases are very very isolated).*****
It may be worse when physicians have a stake in a company-- but still there can be conflicts of interest when you're being paid to attend marketing conferences, and are given large amounts of money--which presumably would be much less if you raised questions about the efficacy of the company's drugs.
*****I think it IS worse when physicians have a stake in the company. I think there can be the appearance of conflict of interest when being paid to attend conferences (I've never heard of a marketing conference by the way and can't imagine why a physician would even want to attend one). I'm not sure it is a fair assumption to assume a negative result would earn you less money from a company. What I can say, however, with certainty is that it will earn you less money from the NIH - but that is another story....*****
How can you not question the judgment and integrity of respected and influential psychiatrists when they knowingly lie about payments they've received.****You do question it. Fortunately, I think these cases are not as widespread as people might believe****
Seldom.
poster:seldomseen
thread:855794
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080926/msgs/855867.html