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…

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.