Money talks. As trite as that saying is, its validity is demonstrated time and again.
Dr. Joseph Biederman, a child psychiatry bigwig, is in the midst of a nasty conflict of interest investigation regarding his dealings with Johnson & Johnson. Biederman has wielded his “Olympian” influence for years to propound his pro-medication stance on psychiatric disorders in children. However, he neglected to report the vast majority of the millions of dollars in profits he earned while conducting clinical trials for the pharmaceutical company. Furthermore, it was recently revealed that he designed his trials with the express purpose of proving (rather than objectively determining) the effectiveness of the experimental drug.
Biederman’s obvious bias towards the welfare of the company that lines his pockets has resulted in his flagrant disregard for the basic principles of good science. The safety and efficacy of every antipsychotic drug whose success was facilitated by his work (and there have been many) is now under a dark “shadow” of doubt. The widespread pediatric use of these drugs—a policy that came into being largely as a result of Biederman’s championing—is now viewed with suspicion, raising the dreadful possibility that doctors may have been administering unnecessary or even harmful treatments to children as young as two.
But this issue has even broader implications. It serves to discredit biomedical research as a whole. The field is already associated with enough ethical controversy; this serious of a blow to its reputation is the last thing it needs.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/EDAF16N963.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/us/20psych.html?_r=2&ref=health
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Even if his it is true, I am not really concerned by Biederman’s failure to report his earning. Any consequences that result do not really affect anyone other than himself and his employers – and especially not his patients. However, the alleged fraud in his scientific research is indeed a scary thought. The situation appears even worse when you consider how vulnerable the system is itself, as research is largely funded by the drug companies themselves. After all, how many drug companies would like to pay to hear negative results?
These thoughts are all based on the assumption that the allegations are true, however. First, I find it skeptical that Biederman would intentionally present a slide that states the experiment “will support the safety and effectiveness of risperidone in this age group.” It seems doubtful that someone would commit such obvious fraud in front of a large audience. Furthermore, if such fraud has actually been ongoing before, as is the concern, why has no other such presentation been performed or reported? These two facts seem somewhat inconsistent to me, which makes me doubt whether scientific deception was actually his intent or simply a misunderstanding.
Post a Comment