Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Tumultuous Few Months Reflect A Growing Concern Over Conflicts Of Interest In Research
Investigations by the New York Times and ProPublica revealed that the prestigious cancer center's chief medical officer, Dr. José Baselga, had been paid millions by drug and health care companies and failed to disclose those ties more than 100 times in medical journals, and that hospital insiders had made lucrative side deals, sometimes for work they had done on the job. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is still reeling from the revelations.
The New York Times:
Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Season Of Turmoil
Hundreds of doctors packed an auditorium at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on Oct. 1, deeply angered by revelations that the hospital’s top medical officer and other leaders had cultivated lucrative relationships with for-profit companies. One by one, they stood up to challenge the stewardship of their beloved institution, often to emotional applause. Some speakers accused their leaders of letting the quest to make more money undermine the hospital’s mission. Others bemoaned a rigid, hierarchical management that had left them feeling they had no real voice in the hospital’s direction. (Thomas and Ornstein, 12/31)
The New York Times:
When Doctors Serve On Company Boards
Cancer centers are re-evaluating their relationships with health care companies, including when, if ever, doctors and researchers should serve on corporate boards. Here are some hospital executives and cancer researchers who sit on the boards of publicly traded companies, in dual roles that may raise questions about conflicts of interest. (Thomas and Ornstein, 12/31)
The New York Times:
Congratulations On The Promotion. But Did Science Get A Demotion?
A number of recent news articles have brought renewed attention to financial conflicts of interest in medical science. Physicians and medical administrators had financial links to companies that went undeclared to medical journals even when they were writing on topics in which they clearly had monetary interests. Most agree such lapses damage the medical and scientific community. But our focus on financial conflicts of interest should not lead us to ignore other conflicts that may be equally or even more important. Such biases need not be explicit, like fraud. (Carroll, 12/31)
