Harvard Med School Students Say ‘No’ To Conflicts
22 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 21st, 2008 // 7:59 am
Those crazy kids are at it again. Brandishing signs on the steps of Harvard Medical School’s Gordon Hall, about 40 students flanked by colleagues from Tufts and Boston University rallied for stronger policies against pharmaceutical-industry influence at Harvard’s affiliated hospitals last month, The Crimson writes.
A petition signed by over 200 faculty and students was delivered to the office of med school dean Jeff Flier, And the event drew the attention of representatives from Pfizer and former New England Journal of Medicine editor Arnold Relman, a med school professor who extemporaneously addressed the group.
Med school students, who spend their third and fourth years at affiliated hospitals for clinical education traiing, say they have been nudging the administration to revamp conflict of interest policies both in the classroom and at the affiliated hospitals for roughly six years to little or no avail. Some want a mandate that faculty and students disclose financial ties to pharma when discussing drugs developed by those companies in the classroom.
“We really view this issue as something that is key to the integrity of medical education at Harvard,” David Tian, a first-year student, tells the student paper. “Starting with our third year, our teachers are the doctors who are interacting with industry on a daily basis in ways that the medical school currently doesn’t standardize or set standards for.”
Here is the rest of the story…
Hat tip to PharmaGossip
BPW
If they only knew how much Big Pharma money has flown into the hands of their esteemed professors over the past 10 years, they would be absolutely shocked! Harvard is definitely in the top 5 of those institutions whose doctors benefit most by Big Pharma ties. If the money is flowing, you can bet that the conflicts of interest are there.
harpy
It’ll be interesting to see what the Massachusetts disclosure law turns up.
B
So basically what little David is saying, is that their third year professors have no ethical grounding. Sounds like that is a university hiring issue, or a med school admission issue, not a pharma issue.
Margaret
Way to go, kids. Maybe you can cause CHANGE, just as you did with our president-elect. Good work. As to it being a “university hiring issue”, it is true that the medical profession has a feeble ethic, depending on where one looks, but look at the crew at the FDA the other day, standing up against pediatric use of atypical antipsychotics. Let the revolution begin!!! As for Harvard, they could start by getting rid of Biederman.
Mark
I guess they won’t be sending out all those letters to Pharma asking for $10,000 unrestricted educational grants to support their next educational confrence in Aruba.
John
Wow,
Med school must be a breeze nowadays. Looks like these kids have enough time to study and protest. As for David Tian, who has been in med school all of 3 mos which is the extent of his medical experience, perhaps you should be studying more anatomy and physiology instead of looking for boogeymen in the pharma industry. It’s sort of like first day carpenter’s apprentice complaining about Black and Decker. Grow up.
Justice in MI
As someone who teaches students of the age John is referring, and younger, I suggest he actually talk sometime with with these folks.
They are not “kids.” And, as for studying and thinking hard and well, a great many could lap most of the people on this blog (including me) many times.
Anyway, I thought student-trashing went out with Spiro Agnew. Now there was a role model.
Kick their lilly white asses
These freakin’ pie in the sky idealists don’t have a clue. I only wish the pharma industry said F* U* to Harvard. MGH and B&G would be laughing stocks in 2 years (even w/ their endowments) while other medical schools of higher learning in the USA would thrive knowing that you do not to slay the golden cow. Their loss. Fin’ clueless idiots. Sad how people can be so smart and so stupid at the same time.
eugene
I don’t mind a bunch of kids given an opportunity to speak their mind. but they are totally uneducated on the topics.
the med students i’ve encountered just “parrot” the messages they’ve been told to say.
someone tells them what to think and they don’t get the opportunity to hear the other side of the story. they are being “biased” by “biased” people.
ART
These schools kill me, they ask for support from pharma, what to be involved in research yet want nothing to do with us. Are these med students not bright enough to just learn and do what is best for the patients
Justice in MI
Here is what the students are asking for as summarized in the Crimson article: “a policy addition mandating that faculty and students disclose financial ties to pharmaceutical companies when discussing drugs developed by those companies in the classroom.”
Rather than trash students (most of those involved are not “white,” btw), why don’t y’all good old boys respond to the issue they raised?
(Personally, I wish Ed hadn’t begun the piece with “those crazy kids.” I understand the humor, but they are anything but.)
Kirby
The Pharma industry did it. Too many young, Barbie and Ken dolls who “parrot messages” and do not understand medicine have corrupted the industry. I don’t blame Medical Schools for closing their doors to these clueless reps who waste people’s time on their trite marketing messages instead of scientific discussions.
As far as disclosing financial ties. I agree.
Ironic
To the 1st year resident.
Working with the pharmaceutical industry in your third year is part of your education. It is naive to think that because the institution does not have guidlines as to how you should interact with the pharceutical company’s does not reflect well on the level of common sense a third year resident should have. You do not have to agree with the protcol’s and relationships the pharamceutical company’s have with institutions like yours. However keep in mind the more you and the residents in your program drive the pharmaceutical companies away you will also loose valuable pieces of your specialty that you choose to practice in. You may not realize this know, but when your subscription to a journal you like to read, or a grand rounds you would like to attend, or when you are looking for funds for research, please don’t ask. It seems obvious based on your comments that your institution can provide you with all these things without assistance from the pharmaceutical companies.
Harvey Gerald
Here is a different viewpoint. I have 35 years experience selling pharmaceuticals, now retired, calling on docs, students, and those professors who work in the Boston hospitals and clinics. I had contact with the Dean of Harvard Medical School when he had a lab in the rear of the Beth Israel Hospital (long before he became Dean) and many other, now famous researchers and academics in famous Boston Hospitals. The Boston area is flooded with them and rightfully so because there are 3 famous medical schools here and a significant number of universities with loads of talented docs who can be called on for technical assistance.
When a company develops a drug that has huge money making potential they are concerned that ideas and molecules could be stolen, consequently, their in-house research is done on animals that are under their control. The drug may even be patented for veterinary use. Eventually, if it is also for use on humans the drug has to be tried on humans. Drug companies do not own humans, consequently, they have to go to doctors who are experts in the particular disease the drug may be useful for. These doctors should be paid for the use of their intellectual property (their brain) and the loss of time taken from their practice which generates income. A consultant to industry is NOT BIASED. He/she did not develop the drug and the company could not afford to hire, on a full time basis, all the experts needed, therefore, they ask private consultants on a part time basis and pay them. If a medical student works in one of these labs just to clean up…. don’t you believe he/she should be paid for their labor? Does that mean they are biased forever because they took money from a drug company? That is ridiculous. What occurs next by these same medical students is extortion.
This discussion, by students primarily, about bias towards a drug company is interesting because when graduation from medical school comes around the medical students come to we salesmen for money to help publish their year book. To me this smacks of EXTORTION. It happens every year. My company monitored us very closely. Only tolls, gas, parking, auto repairs and maintenance were allowed and had to be accompanied with receipts. One time I purchased about $50 worth of junk cookies and cakes to bring to a weekly meeting of a very large department of residents and nurses where clinical cases were discussed. Every cookie was consumed and I got chewed out because of my expenses.
Justice in MI
Good grief! Nobody is assuming anything about bias, illicit conduct, or anything else. All the students are asking, yet again, is ““a policy addition mandating that faculty and students disclose financial ties to pharmaceutical companies when discussing drugs developed by those companies in the classroom.”
Essentially, the same policy now required by most medical journals. Why should the classroom be different?
Re: extortion if/when it exists, I fully agree that it can, and often does, work in both directions. Indeed, let’s make that known as widely as possible.
Justice in MI
As much as Ed is one of my favorite humans, I realize now the headline is a bit misleading.
At least as I understand it, no students are “saying ‘no’ to conflicts.” They are simply asking for disclosure of financial relationships in the context of classroom teaching.
Am I missing something?
David P
I have been a CMR pharma rep for eight years calling on hospitals. Both mom and dad are MD’s and believe I’m in a honorable business. Dad says ” Physicians need pharma and pharma needs physicians ” There is a symbiotic relationship that will always exist. Now let me tell you about these earth shattering gifts I devy out to hospitals.
The most expensive “gift” I have ever been allowed “tempt” these physicians with is rubbery –cold– chicken! I feel bad that I can’t do better but it’s not allowed by my company. Frustrating because if the chicken was warm? Then maybe ? Yeah!! I would really rack up the sales. Perhaps you should take a picture of this “gift” with your phone and email to the dean. Perhaps email the pict to Cong H Waxman who has never paid for a meal and believes that physicians are too weak minded to resist the power of the cold chicken.
Truthfully my keen insite into cold chicken has taught me that the physicians are working there #$%@ off and don’t make it in while the food is warm. Thus the chicken is cold! Gosh that is my top gift so I do hope that the Cold Chicken does the trick. On a serious note the pharma code does not allow any of the funny business that occured 15 years ago so please lighten up. You must gain experience to have an opinion. Please do not allow someone to give you one. I need you and your future patients need my companies 11B yearly R&D. Your school appreciates our unrestricted grants. Please research before crying fire.
Ed Silverman
Hi Justice,
Headline writing is an imperfect art, especially given space considerations. I tried to convey the essence of the issue. In this case, yes, the students involved want full disclosure - because they dislike the conflicts. In any event, I will endeavor to do my best with heds in the future.
Cheers
ed
Justice in MI
Thanks, Ed. You carry a permanent “A+” in this course in any case.
Re: other responses, it is still extraordinary to me that most of the comments are responding to issues that are not what the students have proposed. I don’t know if this is confessional or defensive, but it is amazing.
Chris MacDonald
It’s not unreasonable for students to want this information. There’s a considerable empirical literature on the ways in which various factors bias judgment.
It’s important to note that — contrary to what was implied by Mr. Gerald above — no one is accusing anyone of bias. The claim is just that there are financial ties, here that *could tend* to have a biasing effect, and that students either a) would benefit from, or b) simply have a right to, that information.
For my own blog entry on this story, including links to some useful reading, see:
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/2008/11/corporate-funding-of-health-research.html
Justice in MI
Thanks for your input and link, Chris.
Just so folks understand this is not some “anti-pharma” conspiracy, I was recently sent a study that made a series of claims about a program to boost students’ social justice concerns. It was a lousy study to begin with, relying mostly on anecdotes, but I also noticed it was funded by an organization that would directly benefit if the program were adopted. Once again, the relevant content arena is about as far from pharma as it gets.
If one of the authors of this study spoke in my class, I would make sure that their ties to the funding group were disclosed. The merits of the study are a separate issue, but I think it is ethically and practically important to know that history.
Former Marketing Exec
There is nothing wrong with what the students are asking, and it is exactly what the patients are asking for. It sounds to me that more and more people are asking for transparency….
JIM, it is interesting that most of the commentaries on this article seem to come from people who clearly haven’t read it…
Some of the people seem to have some reason for being so defensive…