Letters to the Editor Discuss Undisclosed Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Harvard Researchers
The New York Times on Monday published four letters to the editor on an investigation report published last week by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in the Congressional Record that found three Harvard Medical School researchers might have violated federal and educational institution regulations when they failed to disclose pharmaceutical industry payments and other conflicts of interest. Grassley and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) have introduced legislation that would require the disclosure of all pharmaceutical industry payments of more than $500. Summaries of the letters appear below.
- Robert Berdahl/Darrell Kirch: "The first obligations of those who conduct life-saving research at American medical schools, teaching hospitals and research universities" are to "protect the safety of patients and assure the integrity and objectivity of science," and they must "reveal to research participants potential financial conflicts of interest and comply with reporting requirements," Berdahl and Kirch -- presidents of the Association of the American Universities and the Association of American Medical Colleges, respectively -- write in a Times letter to the editor. They add that a joint report released by the groups "urges our medical schools and research universities to require clinical research faculty report all outside income directly or indirectly related to professional responsibilities" and to "carry out rigorous oversight policies for institutional conflicts of interest." They conclude, "We are committed to these principles and hope to work with Sens. Charles Grassley and Herb Kohl in their legislative efforts" (Berdahl/Kirch, New York Times, 6/16).
- Nada Stotland: Relationships between researchers and the pharmaceutical industry "can have positive outcomes," and the "public deserves to have access to information" about such relationships, Stotland, president of the American Psychiatric Association, writes in a Times letter to the editor. She adds, "But for real solutions, we have to look even further to ourselves and to our government to pay for the kind of medical education and research that has for decades provided new and better treatments for medical conditions" (Stotland, New York Times, 6/16).
- Diane Goldstein Temkin: The introduction of the bill is "good news," but disclosures of pharmaceutical industry payments "should also be easily accessible to parents and other consumers," Goldstein Temkin, an attorney with the Mental Hygiene Legal Service in New York, writes in a Times letter to the editor. "In New York, a parent's informed consent is required before a doctor can administer nonemergency psychotropic drugs to a child," and, to "make a fully informed choice, parents must be aware of all the relevant information, which should include a doctor's potential conflict of interest," Goldstein Temkin writes (Goldstein Temkin, New York Times, 6/16).
- Susan Resko: "Parents and doctors need all the information" about pharmaceutical industry payments to researchers and physicians "to evaluate research on treatments, including information about potential conflicts" of interest, Resko, executive director of the Child and Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, writes in a Times letter to the editor. She adds, "Complex psychiatric conditions ... require more well-designed, large-scale and long-term studies," which the federal government should finance "so researchers will be less reliant on pharmaceutical financing" (Resko, New York Times, 6/16).
