Something to Fix

It was previously known that a leading child psychiatrist had underreported his income/financial ties from drug-makers, hiding the figures from his university. This New York Times story details a much further deception and huge conflict of interest – smoking gun documents involving Johnson & Johnson show that the psychiatrist was pressuring the company to finance a research center at a hospital, with the goal to “move forward the commercial goals of J. & J.” From the NYT:

The documents offer an unusual glimpse into the delicate relationship that drug makers have with influential doctors.

In a November 1999 e-mail message, John Bruins, a Johnson & Johnson marketing executive, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Dr. Biederman as payment for a lecture he gave at the University of Connecticut.

“Dr. Biederman is not someone to jerk around,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “He is a very proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse.”

Mr. Bruins wrote that Dr. Biederman was furious after Johnson & Johnson rejected a request that Dr. Biederman had made for a $280,000 research grant. “I have never seen someone so angry,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “Since that time, our business became non-existant (sic) within his area of control.”

Mr. Bruins concluded that unless Dr. Biederman received a check soon, “I am truly afraid of the consequences.”

Perhaps the new FDA chief, whoever it may be, can seek guidelines to ensure this improper pressuring and type of relationship won’t happen anymore.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Comments

[Frankie]

Hmmm!
First, Nemeroff, then Biederman.

Something's rotten is PsychLand

And their respective academic institutions didn't know Jack about this?
Talk about zealous oversight!