The New York Times reported yesterday on a Senator Grassley’s revelations into unreported income by some big names amongst researchers. I don’t get how Harvard renowned researchers could be so blasé about failing to report millions of dollars in income from pharmaceutical companies.
The researchers — Drs. Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens, and Thomas J. Spencer — failed to report millions of dollars to their university, as required by Harvard’s rules regarding conflicts of interest. The time period under investigation by Senator Charles E. Grassley was from 2000 to 2007, and two of the researchers– Wilens and Biederman — both failed to report $1.6 million in earnings from pharma, or about $225,000 a year.
This is not chump change to anyone. There’s no way you could simply forget to report such a sum year after year. All the researchers had to say for themselves was “Hey, we thought we were complying with all disclosure rules.”
Really? Is that the best they can muster for an excuse?
These are world-famous, NIH grant-getting researchers at Harvard University — one of the most prestigious universities in the world. They’ve overseen dozens of large-scale clinical trials, with budgets in the millions and staffing in the dozens. These aren’t some absent-minded professors in some backwater university. These are powerful, policy-making men. In fact, one of them — Biederman — has basically legitimized medicating kids as young as 3 or 4 for “bipolar disorder.”
And their excuse amounts to, “Sorry, we thought we had complied with all the rules.”
Their own university wouldn’t let a prospective student enroll who simply forgot to fill out a part of their college application. The student wouldn’t be able to just show up one day and say, “Oh, sorry about that, I thought I had filled it all out. My bad. Let me in anyway.”
This is either an example of gross negligence on the part of the researchers, in being able to maintain simple income reporting paperwork (which, one would think, one would have down to somewhat of a science if one is going to accept such large, continuous chunks of money from companies). Or, it’s something worse — a possible poor attempt to cover up one’s actual payments assuming that since there was no oversight or coordination with the pharmaceutical companies themselves, the university would never be the wiser.
In any case, it shows that (1) at least one prestigious university’s conflict of interest reporting procedures are deeply flawed and virtually useless; (2) even the biggest and brightest research stars are apparently confounded by their own university’s conflict of interest policies; and (3) abuses like this will continue as long as oversight is minimal and rarely enforced. It apparently takes the interest of a U.S. Senator to conduct the minimal oversight one would expect the university itself to be doing:
Mr. Grassley said these discrepancies demonstrated profound flaws in the oversight of researchers’ financial conflicts and the need for a national registry. But the disclosures may also cloud the work of one of the most prominent group of child psychiatrists in the world.
But at the article points out, it also calls into question some of the studies published under the researchers’ names, given prior flaws found in peer-reviewed studies funded by pharmaceutical companies:
In the past decade, Dr. Biederman and his colleagues have promoted the aggressive diagnosis and drug treatment of childhood bipolar disorder, a mood problem once thought confined to adults. They have maintained that the disorder was underdiagnosed in children and could be treated with antipsychotic drugs, medications invented to treat schizophrenia.
I am deeply disappointed in Harvard University’s lack of oversight into its own researchers, and the researchers’ own apparent lack of judgment in not reporting such huge amounts of income. Something is seriously broken here — either with the incentives given to researchers, how researchers track their own time and money, how pharmaceutical research is carried out, or how universities require conflicts of interest and such income to be reported. Or all of the above. Whatever the case, it’s nothing something that will be easily or readily fixed without changes in the rules and better oversight by those responsible.
Read the full article: Researchers Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay
10 comments
Thank you for putting this in the spotlight. This has been an industry-wide practice for years and years. Clinical trials of drugs are conducted by researchers who are well compensated by the drug companies that want FDA approval for their drugs.
Pharmacists know this, doctors know this, researchers know this, universities know this, professional organizations know this, and pharmaceutical companies know that competing for the best and most respected names can make or break the future of a drug. There are lots of rules in place. It’s the lack of ethics, the manipulation and justifications, and no monitoring of compliance, that’s sickening.
I went and read the NYT article:
… “In 2000, for instance, Dr. Biederman received a grant from the National Institutes of Health to study in children Strattera, an Eli Lilly drug for attention deficit disorder. Dr. Biederman reported to Harvard that he received less than $10,000 from Lilly that year, but the company told Mr. Grassley that it paid Dr. Biederman more than $14,000 in 2000, Mr. Grassley’s letter stated.
“At the time, Harvard forbade professors from conducting clinical trials if they received payments over $10,000 from the company whose product was being studied, and federal rules required such conflicts to be managed. “
Hard to pass that off as “I thought I disclosed everything.” Harvard’s problem is a crumb. I wonder if the senator will ever find the loaf.
Thank you again.
The article is just another confirmation of how “the Powers that Be” are in bed together scratching each other’s back. They say they have the public’s interest in mind but in reality it is their own greed.
I see this kind of ethical hypocrisy with the relationship pharmaceutical companies have with doctors as they pay for perks, send expensive food to their offices, show up with very pretty ladies and a few good looking guys. This is all designed to wrap the doctor around their finger in a most unethical relationship that rewards doctors. Never mind the patients and their pocketbook. Hypocrisy!
Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.
http://www.DrSam.tv
I’m sorry Does this be a sob story about not getting enough to kill kids?! What a bunch of BS. GO find something more beneficial to research Harvard losers. Ivy League are some of the biggest losers since all they do be kid killing for the government by manner of being kid liver poisoner with these harsh chemical drugs.
Ivy League colleges such as Harvard and Brown are some of the biggest losers of history (yes even when and especially when they win Nobel prizes for nothing more than obvious eugenics for their Satanist funding .) Since all they do be kid killers for the government by manner of being kid liver poisoner.
Let us not leave out the losers at Rockefeller where they build the virus at the same location they then build a vaccines. And Texas where they build chicken enterovirus flu also and lasers.
How come scientist are endlessly misusing their mental abilities for ill?
What a bunch of owned minds.
i am a rather obvious cyclothyme, from late teens. i’ve been mis-dxed as BP-1, 2–with refractory depression. in year 2000 i was ‘off-labeled’ risperdal. the 1st night’s dose, i peed in my sleep, by day 2 on this IMHO poison, i was reduced to sleeping 18 hours/day, and went from an active cycler of 20 miles/day to walking a block for cheap food. my motor/cognitive skills (former ceo, 8 figure net worth, internationally known writer, etc., etc.)were ‘blown-away’–as a fool i obeyed my shrink and phd, taking risperdal for 4 months. Then, in 2006, Emory U did a ‘real-life’ study on EPS from atypical neuroleptics in affective disorder finding 50+% would be ‘clobbered’, and concluded drug co. study flawed. gee thanks. my toes curled, tendons atrophied, i have had adhedonia, blunted affect–i’m dead–the man that founded industries that now employee thousands? it’s been 8 years of hell, and now even my md. says
i have little hope of regaining former mental status. i also gained 60 lbs, then my back ‘went-out’. and now comes Parkinsons! and no legal firm will fight J & J–i don’t appreciate my former core personality murdered for Big Pharma’s profit. time to clean-house. i am not surprised in the least by even Harvard md.’s ‘on-the-take’. i want ‘pay-back’, i am not violent–but i have perhaps 50% writing ability remaining. ‘the pen Is mightier…’ why not let ‘drug’ testing be done on those who dispense/make such? fat chance–
Okay, I understand the concern over this. But, due to some of life’s little curves, I have a few question’s for those in reaserach that deal with psyc testing, and speech therapist’s test. How come these are given a patien, yet, the person given the test may not know the full implication of the testing? Also, how come a drug company must list every possible side effect, but the makers of the test’s do not have to say how often these tests may report false postitives,only find pre-existing conditions,cause emotional harm or cause finicial harm? Or how come a drug company must reveal as much information as possible, but the maker’s of some of the standard tests that are given do not have to provide a patient the ability to see a test booklet? Just a few points I think that are worth checking out. I think a person that is given any type of this test in a hospital should be given a information leaflet like the one’s some drug makers must provide. This type of thing should be a two-sided coin. Why not make these types of tests be subjected to the same standards of drug testing? How much harm can a test of this sort cause a patient? Could it cause a patient to doubt his or herself? Could this type of testing lead to a waste of healhcare dollars?
I would be interested to hear from anyone on this issue.
Hello John,
as a medical student and a psychiatric patient, I want to thank you for being enraged at Biederman’s behaviour. I’ve just gotten into a fight with an “advocate” calling it a “Scientology plot” against Biederman. If my memory isn’t mistaken I’ve heard this man at APA 2007 ranting and raving against FDA “restrictive” regulations about clinical trials. I guess somebody else got mad at him and spilled the beans.
Unfortunately, somebody will take this man’s unethical behaviour as an excuse to claim that s/he doesn’t need to take medications but – what can I say – caring after oneself when not psychotic still is a matter of personal responsibility I guess.
Thank you again.