Science for Sale: Law Project for Psychiatric Rights

PsychRights
Law Project for
Psychiatric Rights

Is There and (Unbiased) Doctor in the House? by Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, British Medical Journal, 2008;337:a930, July 23, 2008.
State Medical Board Responses to an Inquiry on Physician Research Misconduct, by Sefan P. Kruszewski, M.D., Richard P. Paczynski, MD., and Marzana Bialy, Journal of Medical Lisensure and Discipline, Vol. 94, No. 1: 16-22 (2008).
Editorial: Impugning the Integrity of Medical Science: The Adverse Effects of Industry Influence, by Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2008;299(15):1833-1835.
Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib [Vioxx]: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation, by Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, Kevin P. Hill, MD, MHS, David S. Egilman, MD, MPH, and Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2008—Vol 299, No. 15: 1800-1812.
Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry? by Sergio Sismondo, PLOS, September 2007, Volume 4, Issue 9, e286.
The engineers of human souls & academia, by David Healy, MD, Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 16, 3, 2007.
Influence of Drug Company Authorship and Sponsorship on Drug Trial Outcomes, Tongeji Tunaraza and Rob Poole, British Journal of Psychiatry, 191, 82-83 (2007).
The Growth of Psychopharmacology in the 1990s: Evidence-based practice or irrational exuberance, by Robert Rosenheck, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2005, Vol. 28, 467-483. Extensive review of research into SRI antidepressants and atypical antipsychotics shows research skewed by drug company dominance and financial ties; proposed is an independent scientific agency with broad responsibility in research and monitoring.
Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles, by An-Wen Chen et. al., JAMA, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 20, 2457-2465. Reporting of clinical trials shows that medical research protocols and results were more often than not presented incompletely and out of context, in support of the treatment or drug under study.
Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials, by Daniel Safer, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 2002, Vol. 190, No. 9, 583-592. Identifies and classifies specific techniques drug companies use to modify research design and reporting to serve marketing needs.
Forum: Financial Conflicts of Interest in Psychiatry, The Journal of the World Psychiatry Association, February, 2007.
Publication Bias, Data Ownership, and the Funding Effect in Science: Threats to the Integrity of Biomedical Research, by S. Krimsky, in Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, Edited by W. Wagner and R. Steinzor. Cambridge University Press, 2006
Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials, by Peter C Gøtzsche, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Helle Johansen, Mette Haahr, Douglas G. Altman, An-Wen Chan, PLoS Medicine, 2005 January; 4(1): e19. Ghost authorship, found to be a very common practice in industry-sponsored trials, serves commercial interests and results in a lack of accountability.
Manufacturing Consensus, by David Healy, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, (2006) 30: 135-56.
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review, by Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, Peter C Gøtzsche, British Medical Journal (BMJ), BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B (published 6 October 2006). This study found that industry supported reviews of drugs should be read with caution because they were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and had more favourable conclusions than the corresponding Cochrane (independent) reviews.
Can We Tame the Monster, British Medical Journal, July 8, 2006.
How profits, research mix at Stanford, Mercury News, July 9, 2006.
Commercial bias in medical journals: Commercial influence and the content of medical journals, by Joel Lexchin, Donald W Light, British Medical Journal, 2006; 332:1444-7.
Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry, by Lisa Cosgrove, Sheldon Krimsky, Manisha Vijayaraghavan, and Lisa Schneider, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychother Psychosom 2006;75:154–160, DOI: 10.1159/000091772. This study found that 56% of the 170 DSM panel members had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry and 100% of the members of the panels on "Mood Disorders" and "Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders" had financial ties to drug companies.
Drug trials: Stacking the deck: Studies of medical literature are confirming what many suspected — reporters of clinical trials do not always play straight. Jim Giles talks to those pushing for a fairer deal, Nature, 15 March 2006; | doi:10.1038/440270a.
The Effect of Conflict of Interest on Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can We Trust the Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine?, by John Abramson, MD, MSFP, and Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 2005, Vol. 18 No. 5: 414-18.
Medical Students’ Exposure to and Attitudes About Drug Company Interactions: A National Survey, JAMA, September 7, 2005—Vol 294, No. 9, 1034-1042.
Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry: Who pays the piper?, by Moncrieff J, Hopker S, Thomas P., Psychiatric Bull. 2005;29:84-5.
Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies, by Richard Smith, PLoS Med. 2005 May; 2(5): e138, Published online 2005 May 17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138.
As Universities Get Billions in Grants, Some See Abuses: Cornell Doctor Blows Whistle Over Use of Federal Funds, Alleging Phantom Studies, Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2005; Page A1
Postmarketing Surveillance—Lack of Vigilance, Lack of Trust by Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD Drummond Rennie, MD Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), December 1, 2004—Vol 292, No. 21 2647.
Trial Registration: A Great Idea Switches From Ignored to Irresistible, by Drummond Rennie, MD, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) September 15, 2004—Vol 292, No. 11 1359-1362.
Clinical Trials Controversy Spotlights Flawed System, by Jim Rosack, Psychiatric News July 16, 2004, Volume 39 Number 14.
How Tightly Do Ties Between Doctor and Drug Company Bind?, by By Abigail Zuger, M.D., New York Times, July 27,2004.
Is Academic Medicine For Sale, Marcia Angell, M.D., The New England Journal of Medicine, (May 18, 2000)
Relationships Between Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Pharmaceutical Industry, Niteesh K. Choudhry, M.D.; Henry Thomas Stelfox, M.D.: and Allan S. Detsky M.D., Journal of the American Medical Association, (February 6, 2002) V. 287, No.56, 102-617
Uneasy Alliance: Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry, Thomas Bodenheimer, M.D., Health Policy Report (May 18, 2000, Vol. 342, No. 20, 1539-1544.
Transcript from Now with Bill Moyers, "Science for Sale?"
Medicine's Data Gap:Results of Drug Trials Can Mystify Doctors Through Omission, New York Times, July 21, 2004, By Barry Meier.
The Guardian, Foregone conclusions: The public is being regularly deceived by the drug trials funded by pharmaceutical companies, loaded to generate the results they need, Wednesday January 14, 2004.
Drug firms accused of distorting research
Debate Resumes on the Safety of Depression's Wonder Drugs," August 7, 2002 New York Times article describing the drug companies' hiding of data about the link between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) anti-depression drugs and suicides, particularly in people 18 and under.
Whistleblower's lawsuit could shake up the drug industry is an AP story about a lawsuit over Pfizer promoting fraudulent claims about neurontin's benefits.
Scandal of scientists who take money for papers ghostwritten by drug companies: Doctors named as authors may not have seen raw data, Sarah Boseley, health edito, Thursday February 7, 2002, The Guardian
Revealed: how drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals. Pharmaceutical giants hire ghostwriters to produce articles - then put doctors' names on them. Antony Barnett, public affairs editor, Sunday December 7, 2003, The Observer
Stealth Merger: Drug Companies and Government Medical Research. Some of the National Institutes of Health's top scientists are also collecting paychecks and stock options from biomedical firms. Increasingly, such deals are kept secret. By David Willman. LA Times Staff Writer. December 7, 2003
Psychology in the Prescription Era: Building a Firewall Between Marketing and Science, by David O. Antonuccio, William G. Danton Terry Michael McClanahan

FAIR USE NOTICE: These links may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is used for non-profit educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Any copyright owner who objects to the use of their copyrighted material should send an e-mail to webmaster@psychrights.org.