I have to say that it really seems strange to me to be agreeing with Sen. Grassley, and that he has championed the full disclosure of doctors being paid to schill for drug makers, via research, but, I have to agree with him.
A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators.
By failing to report income, the psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman, and a colleague in the psychiatry department at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Timothy E. Wilens, may have violated federal and university research rules designed to police potential conflicts of interest, according to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. Some of their research is financed by government grants.
Like Dr. Biederman, Dr. Wilens belatedly reported earning at least $1.6 million from 2000 to 2007, and another Harvard colleague, Dr. Thomas Spencer, reported earning at least $1 million after being pressed by Mr. Grassley’s investigators. But even these amended disclosures may understate the researchers’ outside income because some entries contradict payment information from drug makers, Mr. Grassley found.
The problem is, that when the drug companies want a good result, they pay for it. In the cases that Grassley was looking at, the losers have been children,
Dr. Biederman is one of the most influential researchers in child psychiatry and is widely admired for focusing the field’s attention on its most troubled young patients. Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, his work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder, which is characterized by severe mood swings, and a rapid rise in the use of antipsychotic medicines in children. The Grassley investigation did not address research quality.
While Grassley may not have been specifically looking at research quality, just knowing that funds could continue to funnel into one’s school, may have an unconscious result on the outcome of research.
But as corporate research executives recruit the brightest scientists, their brethren in marketing departments have discovered that some of these same scientists can be terrific pitchmen.
As it relates to Grassley’s investigation, should the schools then be charged with verifying what doctors make from pharmaceuticals and medical device makers? Which brings up the point, how would the school check the accuracy of a submitted disclosure?
Now, I’m not sure what prompted Grassley to focus on these psychiatrists, but if the disclosures are such a mess, and there is no what for a university to check the accuracy of such disclosure, then something needs to be put in place that is efficient and easy to use and check.
