- Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
- The Top 12 Science Progress Features of 2008
- Breaking: Physicist John Holdren Is Likely Pick for Science Advisor
- Looking for a Research Bailout
- Want to Work Together? The Impact of Multi-University Collabortion
- “The Single Most Effective Way to Prevent the Transmission of Disease”
- Chu Is Bringing Science Back
- National Research Council: Nanotech Safety Needs a Closer Look. Much Closer.
- Neuroscience Everywhere
- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy, Part 4: The Office of Science and Technology Policy
- CNN Decides It Can Cover Science Without Dedicated Science Reporters
- Stem Cell Recommendations for the New Administration
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