April 15, 2009

The JAMA saga continues

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

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 Journalthat 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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American