Yesterday, we wrote that the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report that was two years in the making and recommended that drug and device makers shouldn’t be allowed to offer freebies - including meals, gifts, travel and ghost-writing helps - to docs, staffers and students in any or all 129 of the nation’s medical colleges.

The 30-member task force, which included a few dissident ceo’s from Pfizer, Lilly and Amgen (read those footnotes carefully), put their heads together over concerns that undue industry influence may raise questions about the “objectivity and integrity of academic teaching, learning and practice” and undermine the ability of academia and industry to jointly promote the public’s interest in sound health.

There are situations, though, where the task force believes faculty can “interact appropriately with industry,” such as participation on boards of directors and scientific advisory boards, as well as consulting, assuming such activities are “conducted in full compliance with the policies of the medical center and applicable law, and compensation reflects fair market value.”

Nothing, however, is said about disclosing such activities. And so several task force members were more than happy to practice what they preach - at least six members have had recent ties to various drugmakers, but these connections weren’t disclosed in the affiliations listed in the report. Here they are…

Haile Debas, a member of PLx Pharma’s scientific advisory board; Victor Dzau, a director at Genzyme, Alnylam Pharma and Medtronic; Jane Henney, a director at AmerisourceBergen and AstraZeneca; Elizabeth Ofili, a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Nitromed and Sanofi-Aventis, and a speaker for Merck; Michael Johns, a Johnson & Johnson director; and Ellen Stovall of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, which receives funding from several drugmakers.

Should such connections automatically infer their views on the relationship between industry and academia are skewed? No, but given the topic covered, their corporate affiliations would have presented a fuller picture of the views they may have brought to the discussion. This is why disclosure can be important - and should have been included in the report’s recommendations.

Hat tip to Roy Poses at Health Care Renewal for first mentioning this and noting some of the conflicts.