Embed head firmly in sand and repeat after me in your best Dorothy in Oz cadence, “Pens and Pizza and Biscuits. Oh my!”
Now consider this new British Medical Journal commentary piece by Iona Heath, the president, Royal College of General Practitioners” --
The politics of drug industry sponsorship
Earlier this month I received a letter from a senior politician inviting me to attend a meeting on a public health topic … I failed to notice that the letter included the sentence: "The meeting is being supported by the healthcare company, Bristol-Myers Squibb." However, when I arrived, the tabled agenda had a similar sentence across the bottom: "The logistical aspects of this meeting are being supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS)."
The usual round of introductions revealed that there were two representatives of the company in the room listening to everything that was being said … Although I welcome unreservedly the transparent disclosure, when I tried to express concern about the process, the said politician assured me, more than a little abruptly, that it was only the coffee and the biscuits … Not surprisingly, the biscuits were much more tempting than usual … Sadly the politician in question seemed not to be aware of the relevance of any of this to the coffee and biscuits.
Dr. Heath’s complete commentary can be found here.
Sadly Dr. Heath (while certainly entitled to her opinion and desire to tow the party line) seems unaware of the evidence to the contrary.
For example, in the January 2010 issue of Academic Medicine (Adad. med. 2010; 85:80-84), four researchers from the Cleveland Clinic published a paper entitled, "The Effect of Industry Support on Participants of Bias in Continuing Medical Education." The purpose of the study: "To obtain prospective evidence of whether industry support of continuing medical education affects perceptions of commercial bias in CME."
The method: "The authors analyzed information from the CME activity database (346 CME activities of numerous types; 95,429 participants in 2007) of a large, multi-specialty academic medical center to determine whether a relationship existed among the degree of perceived bias, the type of CME activity, and the presence or absence of commercial support."
The study's conclusion: "This large prospective analysis found no evidence that commercial support results in perceived bias in CME activities. Bias level seem quite low for all types of CME activities and is not significantly higher when commercial support is present."
Further, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) have adopted a new policy regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Here's the key paragraph:
"There is no inherent conflict of interest in the working relationships of physicians with industry and government. Rather, there is a commonality of interest that is healthy, desirable, and beneficial. The collaborative relationship among physicians, government, and industry has resulted in many medical advances and improved health outcomes."
What a unique perspective -- a "commonality" rather than a "conflict" of interest.
And in a recent editorial in The Lancet, Richard Horton points out that the battle lines being drawn and between clinician, medical research, and the pharmaceutical industry are artificial at best—and dangerous at worst. They are dangerous, because all three constituencies are working towards the same goal—improved patient outcomes.
His point is that we must dismantle the battlements and embrace of philosophy of “symbiosis not schism.” It’s what’s in the best interest of the patient.
Nature Biotechnology puts it this way, “The great unspoken reality is that relationships between companies and researchers are not only becoming the norm, but they are also essential for medicine to progress.”
Suffice it to say that we disagree with Dr. Heath’s position – but we will certainly defend her right to have an opinion and express it.
Alas, the same cannot be said for another fellow traveler – Dr. Steve Nissan.
Recently my friend and co-conspirator Dr. Tom Stossel (the American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine at Harvard, and Director of the Translational Medicine Division of the Brigham and Women's Hospital) was invited to give a Grand Rounds lecture given at Case Western University. Here’s the verbatim e-mail that Dr. Nissen sent to his colleagues at Case Western:
“This guy is an embarrassment to the medical profession. Can’t believe you would have him provide Grand Rounds. Your trainees deserve better.”
Talk about professional discourtesy!
The good news is that Tom’s lecture was standing room only.