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: 17468

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: news

Ramshaw E
University of Texas officials vow to strengthen ethics rules for researchers
The Dallas Morning News 2009 Feb 11
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/64845717.html


Full text:

University of Texas officials said Wednesday that they will strengthen their conflict of interest policy to keep researchers from getting too cozy with pharmaceutical companies, a response to federal scrutiny into the drug company relationships of some of their scientists.

Though they’re still in the early stages of the policy overhaul, they said they hope to make UT the gold standard for research ethics, and to get out in front of a national movement for greater drug company transparency. The improvements will include an online filing system for disclosures, better monitoring of ethically questionable relationships, and tougher penalties for failing to report drug company income.

“The most important thing is to create in the national mind… that we take this seriously and we’re going to move proactively,” said Barry Burgdorf, UT System vice chancellor and general counsel.

Wednesday’s news, which came at a UT Board of Regents meeting, appears to be a response to an influential U.S. senator’s inquiries into the drug company connections of two renowned UT child psychiatrists. And it follows growing calls for drug companies to report the salaries, stipends, trips and gifts they give doctors and researchers – perks that many fear lead to over-prescribing and biased reviews.

The Texas Attorney General’s office will soon take to trial a drug company it believes used these perks to get its pharmaceuticals onto a state mental health protocol. Some UT researchers working on the protocol were the alleged beneficiaries.

In repeated letters to the UT chancellor’s office this fall, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley requested records on two university researchers he says failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in income from drug companies while receiving federal research grants.

In September, UT defended Dr. Augustus John Rush, a former researcher at UT-Southwestern in Dallas, and Dr. Karen Wagner, who works at the University of Texas Medical Branch, telling The Dallas Morning News that there could’ve been “benevolent reasons for the alleged discrepancies.”

There was no mention of these two researchers Wednesday. Nor does the university have reason to believe the researchers who worked on the state mental health protocol are under investigation, Burgdorf said – though the AG’s office hasn’t told them that formally.

“There is appropriate concern that if individuals have [pharmaceutical] interests… it has the potential to undermine the integrity of the research,” said UT-Southwestern Medical Center president Dr. Daniel Podolsky, who also serves on the drug company GlaxoSmithKline’s board of directors. “We need to be sure physicians in our centers aren’t letting that intrude on their judgment of what pharmaceuticals should be on our formularies.”

 

  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








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963