Doctors, researchers and a matter of trust
If consumers needed more evidence that skepticism should always be in fashion, check out the recent story Doctors under the influence? from Business Week.
The story desconstructs an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine in which four smoking-cessation experts suggested that nicotine addicts be treated like people with chronic diseases and given prescription drugs, for years if necessary, to help them fight their habit. At the end of the article, two of those experts acknowledged their ties to makers of smoking-cessation products, most notably the maker of a drug they touted in their article.
A corresponding CBS Evening News report, created in collaboration with Business Week, poses the question: Are perks compromising MD ethics?
The Senate Finance Committee meanwhile is investigating the ever-so-cozy nature of the relationship between researchers and drug companies. It's already pointed fingers at academics at Harvard, the New York Times has announced. Now, as U.S. News & World Report describes, Stanford University gets to share the fun.
Think full disclosure doesn't matter? Here's Eric Campbell, an associate professor at the Institute for Health Policy, telling the blog Pharmalot why it does.
As he says: "A relationship with industry is not bad in and of itself. But at the same time, these carry risk and we need a way to minimize risk, implement a disclosure system, and educate the public about benefits and risks."
-- Tami Dennis
