Subscription Center
Apr 15, 2009 06:40 PM | 2
Two weeks ago, we posted a blog about a case involving a researcher who failed to report ties to the maker of a drug he favorably reviewed in JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association. Today, that researcher charges that the neuroscientist who exposed his ethics violation failed to report his own "preconceived biases."
Robert Robinson, a psychiatrist at Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa, breached JAMA's conflict of interest policy last year by failing to report his connection to Lexapro manufacturer Forest Laboratories in a study highlighting the supposed benefits of the drug for preventing depression in stroke victims. Now he is suggesting that Jonathan Leo, a neuroscientist at Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tenn., had an "ideological agenda" when he brought the violation to light in a letter published last month on the Web site of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
In a letter posted today on the BMJ Web site, Robinson balks that Leo has served as a board member for the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), which Robinson says is "strongly opposed to the blanket use of psychopharmacological treatments."
On its Web site, the ICSSP explicitly says that it's "not against the use of psychoactive drugs," but notes that "the diagnosing and prescribing of psychiatric medications often takes place in the false belief, propagated by the highly profitable drug companies, that only good can ensue." Leo told The Wall Street Journal that he doesn't oppose all psych meds and that he resigned from the board two years ago.
Any suggestion that Leo's relationship with the non-profit group is relevant to Robinson's case is "absurd," says Jerome Hoffman, a professor of medicine and emergency medicine at the University of California in Los Angeles who has studied conflicts of interest in medical research.
"All Dr. Leo did was point out the facts," he says. "JAMA has a rule. Robinson violated it."
Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr
Tags:
lEO,
JAMA,
interest,
Robinson,
conflicts
More News Blog:
Next: Seeing Double: Eyes in the sky to catch the eruption of solar storms in 3-D
Previous: Hybrid help: Can Bill Gates make the electromagnetic combustion engine a reality?
See what we're tweeting about
BecCrew I have no idea what this means but I love it so much http://t.co/NA5WMMApWS
DNLee5 #DispatchesDNLee: Non-target capture Marsh Mongoose: http://t.co/h6iOKMW63v via @YouTube
Horganism Ahab to severed whale head: O head! thou hast seen enough to split the planets and make an infidel of Abraham and not one syllable is thine!
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
2 Comments
Add CommentTu quoque anyone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcademics are supposed to advocate their scholarly viewpoints. Joining an unpaid advocacy organization is exactly what someone like Leo should be doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaking money from a drug company, like Robinson, and then advocating for them without disclosure is exactly what they should not be doing, because it completely undermines the basis of scholarship.
In short:
OK: scholarship --> viewpoint --> advocacy
not OK: $$$$$$$$$$ --> viewpoint --> advocacy
Robinson is making himself look like a complete prick. At this point, I wouldn't trust him to test my knee reflex.