corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17442

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Electronic Source

Silverman E
Grassley Intensifies Probe Into NIH & Stanford
Pharmalot 2008 Aug 1
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/08/grassley-intensifies-probe-into-nih-stanford/


Full text:

The Senate Finance Committee is intensifying its investigation into research grants and conflicts of interest are managed by the National Institutes of Health and universities, whose academic researchers receive both NIH funding and have ties to drugmakers. Yesterday, though, Stanford University and its psychiatry department chair, Alan Schatzberg, came under special scrutiny – again.
You may recall Schatzberg owns about $6 million in stock in Corcept Therapeutics, which is studying the development of mifepristone for treating psychotic depression. He is also a co-patent holder for the drug and he received an NIH grant to oversee the research. In response to the charges that Schatzberg failed to properly disclose this tangled web, Stanford issued a statement defending Schatzberg by saying, among other things, that all conflicts were properly disclosed.
And as we noted here earlier this week, Stanford insists Schatzberg had no role in dealing with patients or analyzing data in mifepristone research, even though he is listed as a primarly investigator on several grants and papers, and NIH rules maintain a principal investigator is responsible “for the scientific or technical aspects of the grant and for day-to-day management of the project or program.” The NIH told us that it modifies an investigator’s duties, by request, on a case-by-case basis, in order to deal with issues such as conflicts.
However, the Congressional Record from July 31 shows that Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the committee, wants Stanford and the NIH to explain the conundrum. “So the question arises: how could Dr. Schatzberg monitor the research funded with his NIH grants if he was not involved closely in the study?” In other words, Grassley wants the NIH to explain why an exception was made involving such a convulated situation.
Moreover, another focus of this widening inquiry is a conflict involving the university itself, since Stanford has a licensing agreement with Corcept and paid $10,000 in royalties to Schatzberg over the past few years. Grassley wants to know how Stanford can manage Schatzberg’s apparent conflict when it has one of its own, and whether the NIH was notified of the conflicts. Bottom line: we can’t help but wonder if the NIH funding for this research will somehow be jeopardized.
Want to read Grassley’s letters to Stanford and the NIH? Go here and type in ‘Schatzberg.’

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909