NIH Yanks Alcohol Study That Was Mired In Controversy Because Scientists Courted Industry To Fund It

Stat: Controversial NIH Study Of 'Moderate Drinking' Will Be Terminated
The National Institutes of Health will shut down a controversial industry-funded study of moderate drinking and heart disease after a task force found severe ethical and scientific lapses in the study’s planning and execution, the agency’s director said Friday. The way NIH officials secured funding for the research “casts doubt” on whether “the scientific knowledge gained from the study would be actionable or believable,” according to the task force’s scathing presentation to NIH officials. (Begley and Joseph, 6/15)

The New York Times: Major Study Of Drinking Will Be Shut Down
The extensive government trial was intended to settle an age-old question about alcohol and diet: Does a daily cocktail or beer really protect against heart attacks and stroke? To find out, the National Institutes of Health gave scientists $100 million to fund a global study comparing people who drink with those who don’t. Its conclusions could have enshrined alcohol as part of a healthy diet. (Rabin, 6/15)

The Associated Press: NIH Ends Alcohol Study, Citing Funding, Credibility Problems
The National Institutes of Health used money from the alcohol industry to help pay for a study that ultimately was expected to cost $100 million. It's legal for NIH to use industry money in addition to taxpayer dollars for research as long as certain rules are followed. The problem: An NIH investigation concluded Friday that a small number of its employees had close contact with industry officials that crossed those lines. Some of those interactions "appear to intentionally bias" the study so that it would have a better chance of showing a benefit from moderate alcohol consumption, said NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak. (Neergaard, 6/15)

The Washington Post: NIH Cancels $100 Million Study Of Moderate Drinking As Inescapably Compromised
NIH Director Francis S. Collins said the results of the 10-year, $100 million study would not be trusted because of the secretive way in which staff at an institute under NIH met with major liquor companies, talked to them about the trial’s design and convinced them to pick up most of the tab for it. “Many people who have seen this working-group report were frankly shocked to see so many lines crossed,” he said, calling the staff interaction with the alcohol industry “far out of bounds.” (Wan and Bernstein, 6/15)

The Wall Street Journal: NIH Ends Study On Health Benefits Of Alcohol, Citing Improper Ties To Industry
In a meeting Friday of an advisory board to Dr. Collins, Lawrence A. Tabak, NIH principal deputy director, said an outside report on the study that was commissioned by the NIH concludes that NIAAA officials “appear to have intentionally biased the framing of the scientific premise” of the study in the direction of focusing on possible benefits of alcohol. The report said that email correspondence involving NIAAA staff, outside researchers and the alcohol industry “appear to be an attempt to persuade industry to provide funding” for the study. Also at the meeting, NIAAA director George Koob said, “I’m disappointed in what transpired. I think the trial is irrevocably damaged.” (Burton, 6/15)

Los Angeles Times: Ties Between Researchers And Alcohol Producers Prompt NIH To Shut Down Study Of Moderate Drinking
The plan was to enroll 7,800 people ages 50 and up who did not have diabetes. Some of them would be randomly assigned to consume about 15 grams of alcohol per day. The others would be asked to abstain from drinking. Researchers from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, along with colleagues in the United States, Nigeria, Denmark and the Netherlands, would then follow these volunteers for about six years to see whether the moderate drinkers developed fewer cases of cardiovascular disease and diabetes compared to their teetotaling counterparts. (Kaplan, 6/15)