- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Conflicts of Interest Under Scrutiny
Attention in the news to conflicts of interest within the medical profession seems to be on the rise. This is an issue that deserves serious scrutiny, particularly given how permissive the attitude of the medical community has been so far.
The Scientist NewsBlog reports on conflicts of interest within the HHS Stem Cell Council (free registration):
The Center for Science in the Public Interest polled the 25 voting members of HHS’s Advisory Council on Blood Stem Cell Transplantation (ACBSCT) and found that 11 reported having financial ties to stem cell and umbilical cord blood banking companies, drug makers, and the transplantation industry.
Apparently, none of the original applicants to the Council were screened for such conflicts.
Science Progress recently covered a report in The Chronicle on a study (subscription) from the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that many academic scientists are adding their names to reports and papers written by corporations.
In any other context, both of these revelations would have been shocking. But within the medical profession, this is apparently not unusual.
The Health Section of the NYT yesterday reported that the Association of American Medical Colleges is proposing a ban on medical giveaways:
Drug and medical device companies should be banned from offering free food, gifts, travel and ghost-writing services to doctors, staff members and students in all 129 of the nation’s medical colleges, an influential college association has concluded.
The NYT also recently profiled a small group of scientists who decided to cease all paid services or consulting appointments with the food, drug, and medical device industries:
No longer will they be paid for speaking at meetings or for sitting on advisory boards. They may still work with companies. It is important, they say, for knowledgeable scientists to help companies draw up and interpret studies. But the work will be pro bono.
…
They are part of a group responding to accusations of ethical conflicts inherent in these arrangements, and their decisions repudiate decades of industry influence, says Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, a professor at the Tufts School of Medicine, who has written a book on conflicts of interest.
Well it’s high time, too. Just because a practice is pervasive within a profession does not mean it passes ethical muster. And just because somebody is a well-intentioned doctor does not mean she’s immune to bias. That is why we institute ethical regulations. So far, the medical and scientific community has been surprisingly lax about conflicts of interest. One would hope that the personal decision of a few scientists and the ban by the Association of American Medical Colleges indicate the beginning of a trend in the opposite direction.
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Comments on this article
