Comments on: Under Pressure, Stanford Pulls Schatzberg Grant

By: Adirondack

Adirondack — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:42:20 +0000

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.

By: LILLI

LILLI — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:57:04 +0000

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.

By: S Silvertein

S Silvertein — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:34:26 +0000

It’s not just Stanford. Here’s Yale’s story:

http://www.educause.net/ir/library/powerpoint/csd5020.pps

By: Ed Silverman

Ed Silverman — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:08:57 +0000

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

By: Thom

Thom — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:55:49 +0000

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.

By: Mike M

Mike M — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 04:16:32 +0000

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.”

By: Laurie

Laurie — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 03:24:26 +0000

Exactly! It’s really quite simple.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 01:25:45 +0000

It appears that in the future, entrepreneurial professors should completely divuldge their ties to Big Pharma…

By: Paul G

Paul G — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:49:49 +0000

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.

By: Eskimo

Eskimo — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:11:28 +0000

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.