The original article in Forbes Magazine entitled "Free the Scientists!" by Dr. Stossel may be viewed here. The FAIR Foundation rebuttal was recently submitted to the Editor of Forbes Magazine by our President, Richard Darling, DDS, and FAIR Board member Leonard J. Morse, MD.

“On My Mind”
By Richard Darling, DDS,
National Public Citizen of the Year (2003); President and CEO of The FAIR Foundation
Leonard J. Morse, M.D.,
Commissioner of Public Health, Worcester, MA, and Chair Emeritus, American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs

Scientists are Free 

The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 8.031, states that “avoidance of real or perceived conflicts of interest in clinical research is imperative if the medical community is to ensure objectivity and maintain individual and institutional integrity.” [i]

               In the Forbes February 2005 issue, Thomas P. Stossel, M.D. laments the new conflict of interest rules by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that restrict scientists’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies. The title of his article exclaimed “Free the Scientists!” Recently, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued new rules that place stringent restrictions on the NIH’s 18,000 employees in regard to their stock holdings, outside consulting, and other forms of income from drug companies and similar sources. [ii]               

               In response, senior scientists are now planning to engage in litigation in order to keep the old system, [iii]  and an organization representing senior NIH intramural researchers[iv] issued a statement saying that the tough ethics regulations "substantially overreach and will severely and irreparably compromise the NIH's mission.” Dr. Stossel and those employees may not feel these new rules are needed, but we respectfully disagree.              

               Records reveal 530 NIH scientists have taken fees, stocks or stock options from biomedical companies in the last five years.[v] In addition, among some people, public confidence has lessened when evaluating the NIH’s research allocations for HIV/AIDS. There is concern why $3,084 is spent on each patient estimated as having AIDS versus only $80 on each patient with diabetes mellitus[vi] when the latter is responsible for more deaths than AIDS and breast cancer combined. Indeed, although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is estimated to kill close to a million Americans annually[vii] compared to 18,017 for AIDS (2003),[viii] only $40 is spent on CVD per patient. These are just two examples of funding disparities between AIDS and other diseases, including the sixteen that kill over a million more Americans than AIDS annually. These disparities in funding are even more bothersome when one is made aware that the death rate among California’s newly infected AIDS patients has plummeted 98% to 201 deaths, (through 2/28/05).[ix] Recent revelations of  clinical investigators having profited from the AIDS drugs they were evaluating, without informing the patients who were taking the medications, have intensified the controversy over conflicts of interest.[x]              

               Collaboration among scientists, regardless for whom they work, should be encouraged because synergy promotes discovery and society will benefit. The pharmaceutical industry, which stands to gain from the potential of product development, should be encouraged to invest in collaborative research. Academic investigators however, must avoid conflict of interest. They should not serve as paid consultants (beyond their expenses) because when one appreciates financial gain objectivity may become clouded.               

               We compliment the OEG, HHS and NIH for now disallowing all employees from paid consulting positions with pharmaceutical companies and support restricting salaried academic scientists from receiving payment, expensive gifts, lavish entertainment, vacations or other substantial benefits from corporations supporting their research. Such habits, regardless of the product, should be eliminated from corporate culture as well, because beyond conflict of interest the cost of such behavior will ultimately be borne by the consumer.              

               We urge a permanent ban on lateral payments between salaried academic scientists and private funding corporations and that the NIH be a sterling example of appropriateness in this regard.

 


Home | The Facts | $Your Disease$ | Quiz | Newsletter | In The News | Speeches
Join FAIR | FAIR Concept | Coma Life| Donate Please | Links | Contact FAIR | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2008 The FAIR Foundation. All rights reserved
 Webmaster     
. . .   .
. . . . . . .    . . . . . . . .   . . . .    .   .  . .   .