<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grassley Intensifies Probe Into NIH &#038; Stanford</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/08/grassley-intensifies-probe-into-nih-stanford/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/08/grassley-intensifies-probe-into-nih-stanford/</link>
	<description>News, Comment and Conversation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Daniel saal</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/08/grassley-intensifies-probe-into-nih-stanford/#comment-377518</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel saal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=14932#comment-377518</guid>
		<description>It is clear from reading the congressional letters and from my direct knowledge of Alan that there may be some question about how things were documented but much less likely a legal or ethical failings. These may be the early growing pains of the relatively new system (30 years or so) in which researchers are allowed to capitalize on their findings.  For example Alan was open about the money he recieved from Corcept and the other companies.  When he gives talks he puts up a slide of essentially every neuroscience related drug company and comments that these are the companies from which he recieved money and if there is anyone in the audience who knows of any company not on the slide please let me know...  It may take a generation or two of scientists or a realignment of the relationship fo NIH funded researchers and private industry to quell concerns like these.  In the end if researchers are to capitolize their discoveries should we then forbid them to continue the work on those same discoveries?
Daniel Saal MD Ph.D.
Stanford resident, fellow, Staff physician '97-04</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is clear from reading the congressional letters and from my direct knowledge of Alan that there may be some question about how things were documented but much less likely a legal or ethical failings. These may be the early growing pains of the relatively new system (30 years or so) in which researchers are allowed to capitalize on their findings.  For example Alan was open about the money he recieved from Corcept and the other companies.  When he gives talks he puts up a slide of essentially every neuroscience related drug company and comments that these are the companies from which he recieved money and if there is anyone in the audience who knows of any company not on the slide please let me know&#8230;  It may take a generation or two of scientists or a realignment of the relationship fo NIH funded researchers and private industry to quell concerns like these.  In the end if researchers are to capitolize their discoveries should we then forbid them to continue the work on those same discoveries?<br />
Daniel Saal MD Ph.D.<br />
Stanford resident, fellow, Staff physician &#8216;97-04</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.146 seconds -->

