Recently, a group of investigators at Harvard were found to have been personally enriched, through consulting for drug companies, to the tune of $1.6 million dollars, each, over a period of seven years. That’s approximately $228,500 per year. Based on what my husband makes as a physician at an academic institution, this would be the equivalent of doubling his salary- a separate salary equal to the one he already gets from his employer. (Click here to read the recent New York Times Article on the subject.)
These investigators, Dr, Joseph Beiderman and Dr. Tim Wilens, are some of the best known and most prominent researchers into topics about childhood psychiatric issues, ranging from treatment for bipolar disorder to ADHD and about everything in between. The doctors are getting into trouble for not disclosing the sums they were receiving as consultants for the drug companies to the National Institutes of Health and their University, which supports their research financially. It also brings into question about whether their many peer-reviewed clinical research articles are somehow tainted by this revelation.
As a parent, what do you think? Do you think the money these researchers received taints their objectivity and the research they have done in the field for many years? Research that has helped frame the treatment decisions of parents and doctors for many years? I am not sure myself, and would love to hear what you think. Please post your responses here.
7 responses so far ↓
Stu Mark // Jun 9, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I find this news offensive - I was always led to believe that there was a strict ethic in scientific research, that the suppliers of the drug being tested can’t have anything to do with the testing team, even in an ancillary capacity. Am I mistaken?
Megin Hatch // Jun 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm
When someone breaks your trust you question everything that they’ve said and done before. If they were misleading folks about the $ why not about the results.
Anh- sad.
Rachel // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:07 am
If they were receiving payments from drug companies they were absolutely obliged to disclose it. Absent disclosure, everything they did or said is tainted.
Whitney // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:07 am
As a parent of children with ADHD, I have read and relied on this research in making treatment decisions for my children. While I don’t believe any of those treatment decisions have been wrong, and they have worked out beautifully for us, it makes my job harder to convince people that ADHD is indeed real, that meds are not a lazy parent cop-out, and that the science is real and reliable.
The point here is that these doctors, who I admire, broke a trust by not being honest about where their interests lie. One of the things that I learned in law school is that money changes relationships, and you always have to be crystal clear and honest about financial transactions. (After all, people may think about suing people over principals, but in the end, the recompense is always measured in financial terms.)
We all have different fiduciary responsibilities in our lives, and these very well respected physicians had fiduciary responsibilities to the NIH, to Harvard and Mass General, and to the patients and public who rely on their research.
Keeping your personal finances and interests separate from your business dealing is important; those lines between work and play can get blurry, but you have to make sure the money lines are clear, or they will come back to bite you, like it did for Dr. Beiderman and Wilens.
InTheFastLane // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:14 am
It does make me wonder what to believe. I always want to believe the best about people, but that seems like it would make it very difficult for the researchers to be completely objective.
Megin Hatch // Jun 10, 2008 at 8:54 am
(Hi Rachel
AmyL // Jun 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I operate on the assumption that all people have agendas, whether they want to admit it or not. I would much rather have someone be upfront about that and allow me to draw my own conclusions after scrutinizing them carefully. If a major corporation wants to fund research then great! let’s do it. But everyone should be very clear about where the money is going. Anything less is dishonesty.
At the same time, accepting money from a large corporation for research does not make it inherently flawed.
There’s some exciting news on the horizon for new ways to detect lung cancer earlier. The research was funded by tobacco companies so there are a bunch of people saying that the research is no good. How about we just test the science and see?
No researcher is going to be completely objective. They’re human after all. That can work in the public’s favor though. Someone who desperately wants to find a cure for something is going to work harder to find it. A robot wouldn’t.
Leave a Comment