Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Grant Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pharmaceutical Grant Money. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

A Drug Trial’s Frayed Promise

By Katie Thomas
The New York Times
Originally published April 17, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

The University of Minnesota’s clinical trial practices are now under intense scrutiny. In February, a panel of outside experts excoriated the university for failing to properly oversee clinical trials and for paying inadequate attention to the protection of vulnerable subjects. The review, commissioned by the university after years of criticism of its research practices, singled out Dr. Schulz and his department of psychiatry, describing “a culture of fear” that pervaded the department.

In March, after another critical report by Minnesota’s legislative auditor, the university announced that it would halt all drug trials being conducted by the psychiatry department until outside experts could review them. And this month, the university announced that Dr. Schulz would step down as head of the psychiatry department. The dean of the medical school, Dr. Brooks Jackson, said in a statement to reporters that Dr. Schulz’s decision “was completely his own” and that he would “remain a valued member of our faculty.”

The entire article is here.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

U of T criticized for links between Big Pharma and Med Schools

By Georgia Williams
The Varsity
Originally published July 16, 2014

A recent report in the Journal of Medical Ethics took aim at the actions of university lecturers who have ties to pharmaceutical companies — including those at U of T.

The study — written by Dr. Navindra Persaud, a practicing physician at St. Michael’s Hospital — questions the validity of the content taught in one of the mandatory lecture series he attended as a medical student at the university in 2004. The lecture on pain pharmacotherapy used a modified classification chart from the World Health Organization (WHO) to show oxycodone as both a “weak and strong opioid,” comparable to codeine. However, as Dr. Persaud’s report indicates, oxycodone is at least  “1.5 times more potent than morphine” a drug that the WHO lists as a strong opioid. Dr. Persaud’s study also claims that the drug’s adverse side effects were downplayed by the lecturer.

The entire story is here.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

The DSM-5: A Vehicle For High-Profit Patent Extensions?

Gregg Fields & Lisa Cosgrove | Labcast
Harvard University SoundCloud Podcast

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders affects drugs with sales in the billions of dollars. In research supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Lisa Cosgrove of UMass-Boston investigated financial ties between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in finding new indications for their blockbuster drugs. In this podcast, she tells journalist Gregg Fields what she found, what it means—and why we all should care.

"Tripartite Conflicts of Interest and High Stakes Patent Extensions in the DSM-5," Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Senator questions $2m NIH grant to disgraced psychiatric researcher

By Bob Roehr
British Medical Journal
Originally published June 1, 2012

Dr. Nemeroff
The US senator Charles Grassley has called on the National Institutes of Health to justify its decision to award a five year $2,000,000 grant to the prominent but disgraced psychiatric researcher Charles Nemeroff, "despite past ethical problems."

"It is troubling that NIH continues to provide limited federal dollars to individuals who have previously had grant funding suspended for failure to disclose conflicts of interest," Grassley wrote in a 29 May letter to the director of the NIH, Francis Collins.

He asked Collins to provide full documentation of communications concerning Nemeroff and the grant within two weeks.

The information is here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

There are other blog entries here and here about Dr. Nemeroff.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?

By Melody Petersen
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published on April 15, 2012

Here are some exerpts:

Scores of animal scientists employed by public universities have helped pharmaceutical companies persuade farmers and ranchers to use antibiotics, hormones, and drugs like Zilmax to make their cattle grow bigger ever faster. With the use of these products, the average weight of a fattened steer sold to a packing plant is now roughly 1,300 pounds—up from 1,000 pounds in 1975.

It's been a profitable venture for the drug companies, as well as for the professors and their universities. Agriculture schools increasingly depend on the industry for research grants, a sizable portion of which cover overhead and administrative costs. And many professors now add to their personal bank accounts by working for the companies as consultants and speakers. More than two-thirds of animal scientists reported in a 2005 survey that they had received money from industry in the previous five years.

Yet unlike a growing number of medical schools around the country, where administrators have recently tightened rules to better police their faculty's ties to pharmaceutical companies, the schools of agriculture have largely rejected critics' concerns about industry cash. Administrators have set few limits on how much corporate money agricultural professors can accept. Faculty work with industry is governed by confidentiality rules that veil it from public view.

The entire story is here.