Under Pressure, Stanford Pulls Schatzberg Grant
10 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 1st, 2008 // 3:58 pm
Less than a day after the university is publicly questioned again by US Senator Chuck Grassley over its handling of an alleged conflict of interest involving its psychiatry department chair, Alan Schatzberg, and his tangled web of stock holdings, royalty payments and NIH grants for mifepristone research, Stanford has yanked the grant from him and appointed another principal investigator.
A spokesman tells us this statement was sent to the Senate Finance Committee:
Despite our belief that Stanford, NIMH and Dr. Schatzberg have handled this grant in accordance with the regulations and applicable polices and with due regard to the integrity of the research, we can see how having Dr. Schatzberg as the principal investigator on this grant can create an appearance of conflict of interest.
Therefore Stanford, with the concurrence of Dr. Schatzberg, is temporarily appointing another principal investigator on this grant and we have advised NIMH. We hope this will eliminate any misunderstanding of Dr. Schatzberg’s role with respect to the mifepristone research by those who may not be familiar with the grant and oversight process.
We will be working with NIMH in this interim period to restructure the research on this grant to serve three important purposes which are in the best interest of the NIH, the oversight process and public confidence in the research.
- We want to put to rest confusion about the integrity of the research involving mifepristone.
- The research regarding mifepristone should continue.
- Vital research on other issues regarding psychotic depression -research that has nothing to do with mifaprestone- should continue as well.
And this letter was sent to the NIH.
And here is Grassley’s reaction: “Today’s announcement demonstrates that transparency has a vital role in building confidence and bolstering independence in medical research.”
Eskimo
Grassley is effectively flexing his muscles and scaring scientists and university administrators across the country.
It appears that in the future, entrepreneurial professors in the biomedical field will have a choice.
Either:
1. quit your university job and join the company you founded full time
2. accept no stock or payment from the company if you want to lead the clinical trial - and expect audits
3. keep your university job, accept some stock but switch fields
But one part of this bugs me.
Did Corcept and mifepristone really have a money-making future? As a somewhat informed observer, I expected them to fizzle out, with the esteemed professor’s $6 million in stock losing much of its value.
Paul G
I read the letter from Stanford to the NIH and it seems hat everyone, including the doctor, did the right thing all the way. I encourage people to read the letter posted by Ed before coming to conclusions.
Seems like another over-reaction by Grassley’s news-hungry staff.
Matt
It appears that in the future, entrepreneurial professors should completely divuldge their ties to Big Pharma…
Laurie
Exactly! It’s really quite simple.
Mike M
Paul G,
You are correct, the letter from Stanford does make it appear that everyone involved on that side did the correct thing……my question is, does this surprise you? I highly doubt at this stage they would be willing to concede that they have mismanaged millions and millions of dollars worth of grants and conflicts of interests. I find it interesting that one of Grassley’s letters actually puts the institution (Stanford) in the spotlight, indicating that they have conflicts of interests in the area of mifepristone research as well.
Your rationale is similar to saying “Did you read the defense attorney’s response to the charges, they clearly state their client is innocent.”
Thom
All those damn lawyers and so many Ivy League brains and Stanford still can’t put out a press release that uses the correct word “principal” instead of “principle.”
Grassley should investigate the whole lot, and have them fired for intellectual incompentence.
That would be the principled thing to do.
Ed Silverman
Hi Thom,
The typo was actually my mistake. The Stanford spokesman dictated the statement to me and it was then typed it in as fast as possible in a quest to get this posted as quickly as I could. Sorry to create the impression that Stanford folks were to blame.
Regards
ed
S Silvertein
It’s not just Stanford. Here’s Yale’s story:
http://www.educause.net/ir/library/powerpoint/csd5020.pps
LILLI
NIH grants for research most likly produces a conflict of interest. Research granst and funding are triplicated and duplicated and many are a waste of mine. The general public is lucky to be alive with the corruption in the medical profession. The Universities and Research Companies receive more funding from NIH then is required and many times the research was previously completed. Elected and appointed officals are allowing the issues and conditions to continue for a duration.
Adirondack
Evil is not only banal, but often results from brutal insensitivity rather than develish malice.
The psychiatrist who finally gave the appropriate diagnosis to my Zyprexa-killed son is now at Stanford. He thinks I am a Scientologist. In gratitude for what he gave us, I pray that his record is clean.