healthy4u: University of Sheffield

Deja Vu All Over Again - Sheffield Researcher Under Threat for Trying to Present Data that Offends Research Sponsor

It's deja vu all over again.  A case <a href="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=410419&c=2">reported</a> (so far only) in the UK Times Higher Education Supplement of a biomedical researcher apparently threatened because she tried to present data that did favor a particular commercial health care product. Here is the summary: <blockquote>An academic has risked the wrath of her university by submitting results to a forthcoming conference without permission. The University of Sheffield has claimed that the submission has been made in breach of a contract it has with a pharmaceutical company, which funds work in the scholar's field. Guirong Jiang, a research radiologist who has worked at Sheffield for 13 years, is due to face a disciplinary hearing over her actions this week. Her findings - submitted to a symposium of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS), to be held in Glasgow in June - add to the debate over what some have claimed is a distortion in the field of osteoporosis caused by the over-diagnosis of vertebral fractures.</blockquote> Here are more particulars: <blockquote>Sheffield has censured her for making the submission without the consent of her supervisor, Richard Eastell, head of Sheffield's Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism. It said her actions breached the terms of a 2007 contract the unit has with pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis to conduct studies relating to the osteoporosis treatment risedronate, which is sold as the drug Actonel. It also said Dr Jiang failed to follow 'reasonable requests' to withdraw the submission. Dr Jiang said she believed her results should be published as they had not been reflected in the unit's previous output. She added that last December she was informed that her contract would not be renewed when it came to an end this March, which she said had prompted her to throw caution to the wind and publish without permission. She has queried whether her work is bound by Sheffield's Sanofi-Aventis contract, which stipulates that the company must be allowed to review manuscripts and abstracts prior to publication. She pointed out that the work was carried out in 2002 when the unit's risedronate work was funded by Procter & Gamble in partnership with Aventis. Dr Jiang added that she had not seen or signed the full Sanofi-Aventis contract.</blockquote> Dr Jiang is still under threat: <blockquote>The disciplinary hearing, scheduled to take place on 18 February, will consider the allegation that Dr Jiang 'acted inappropriately in making a direct submission of an abstract to a journal outside unit protocol and in contravention of the terms of the research contract'. It will also consider the charge that she 'failed to follow a request by her head of unit and head of department to rectify her actions', which 'aggravated a situation which otherwise could have been quickly resolved'.</blockquote> A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, academics had the expectation that they could publish or present their research without first acquiring the express approval of their academic superiors (at least as long as their work was original, the research project was under their control, and that they had properly protected the rights of any human subjects). Furthermore, in at least the US, academics are citizens who expect to have free speech. But as academic institutions became more enamored of and dependent on "external funding," faculty were increasingly pressured to do only sponsored research. The growing dependence on sponsored research allowed the sponsors to try to get more control over how research was done. In the 1990s, there were several important cases in North America in which academic researchers tried to present or publish results that clashed with their research sponsors' vested interests. Doing so resulted in lesser or greater threats to the faculty. Two of the classic cases of research suppression in the 1990's demonstrated this issue. * In the "David Kern case," a textile manufacturer, Microfibres Inc., tried to prevent Dr. David Kern, a general internist and occupational medicine physicians at Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and faculty member at Brown University, from presenting an abstract that described a case-series of a new pulmonary disease, flock-workers lung, that affected workers at Microfibres Inc. factories. Kern did present the abstract, but under a threat, never carried out, of law-suit, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island removed Kern as head of the Occupational Medicine program, and refused to renew his contract, even though he was an Associate Professor. Brown University was unable to reverse these moves by the hospital, and Brown officials blamed Kern for signing an agreement to protect trade secrets, even though the agreement was unrelated to the research Kern did on the disease, and his research did not obviously reveal any trade secrets. [1-4] * In the "Nancy Olivieri case," Apotex, a pharmaceutical company, acted against Dr. Nancy Olivieri for revealing preliminary data from a trial of deferiprone, a chelating agent for the treatment of iron overload in thalassemia, suggesting that the drug was often ineffective in treating iron overload, and appeared to be associated with hepatic fibrosis. Ultimately, a report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers also held that her academic freedom was abridged, in the context of a negotiation between the University of Toronto and Apotex over a large donation, and that the hospital harassed Dr. Olivieri during her dispute with Apotex (link <a href="http://www.caut.ca/uploads/OlivieriInquiryReport.pdf">here</a> for report)   In the early 21st century, there was a case in the UK with spooky similarites to the present case: at the same university involved in the present case, and with at least one participant in common with that case.  About a year after we started <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal</a>, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest. Our most recent summary of the case was <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/09/reappearance-of-ghost-of-seasons-past.html">here</a>. Dr Blumsohn was also doing clinical research on the drug Actonel, again at the University of Sheffield.  He was denied access to the very data he had collected, and to analyses of the data by Procter and Gamble, the then manufacturer of the drug and sponsor of the research.  Dr Blumsohn found that Procter and Gamble seemed to be arranging for ghost-writers to author abstracts about the research based on these hidden analyses.  After he complained to numerous officials at Sheffield, including Dr Richard Eastell, to no avail, he spoke to the press, and thereafter lost his academic position.  The case was just recapped in an interview of Dr Blumsohn published in the British Medical Journal(5).   So we seem to have made little progress.  Most clinical research at academic medical institutions is sponsored by firms that make drugs and devices.  The firms try to secure contracts that give them control over most aspects of the research.  Thus, they can determine how the research is designed, implemented, ana analyzed.  If the resulting <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/manipulating%20clinical%20research">manipulation</a> still does not yield results that make the firms' products look good, the sponsors can then just <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/suppression%20of%20medical%20research">suppress</a> them.  Academics who naively think it is their duty to find and disseminate the truth are in jeopardy when they attempt to present or publish results that challenge their research sponsors' vested interests.   Suppression of clinical research, however, is bad for patients and honest health care professionals, since it misleads about the benefits and harms of tests and treatments.  Suppression of clinical research dishonors research subjects who volunteer for studies, often at risk to themselves, thinking they may help to advance science and clinical care.  Suppression of clinical research undermines the fundamental mission of academia: to seek out and disseminate the truth.   Those who truly want better health care, here in the US and globally, should advocate for clinical research done without the influence of those with vested interests in how the research comes out.    Thanks to an anonymous Health Care Renewal scout who located the Times article.    References 1. DG Kern, RS Crausman, TH Durand et al. Flock worker's lung: chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 261-272. (link <a href="http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/129/4/261">here</a>) 2. Shuchman M. Secrecy in science: the flock worker's lung investigation. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 341-344. (link <a href="http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/129/4/341">here</a>) 3. Marsh DJ. Intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1317-1318. (link here) 4. Shuchman M. Consequences of blowing the whistle in medical research. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 1013-1015. (link <a href="http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/132/12/1013">here</a>) 5.  Cyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: academic who took on industry. Brit Med J 2009; 339:b5293. (link<a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec15_1/b5293"> here</a>)

Deja Vu All Over Again - Sheffield Researcher Under Threat for Trying to Present Data that Offends Research Sponsor

It's deja vu all over again. A case reported (so far only) in the UK Times Higher Education Supplement of a biomedical researcher apparently threatened because she tried to present data that did favo…

Đọc thêm »

19 Feb 2010

British Medical Journal Interviews Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

About a year after we started Health Care Renewal, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest.  Our most recent summary of the case was <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/09/reappearance-of-ghost-of-seasons-past.html">here</a>.  The case involved suppression and manipulation of research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower. It provides lessons about the downsides of letting commercial firms sponsor and hence control human research designed to evaluate the products or services they sell; and of academic medicine becoming dependent on research money from such firms for such research. The case was just re-capped in some detail on the occaision of an interview of Dr Blumsohn published in the British Medical Journal, just available on-line yesterday.  [Cyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: academic who took on industry.  Brit Med J 2009; 339:b5293.  Link <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec15_1/b5293">here</a>.]  Dr Blumsohn's final words in the interview were: <blockquote>It’s hard to encourage anyone to speak out about poor practice in the current environment. This case sums up what has gone wrong with systems set in place to ensure safety and integrity in scientific medicine. It would help if regulators put as much effort into responding to serious critics and whistleblowers as they do producing glossy brochures and yet more guidance. </blockquote> My hat is off to Dr Blumsohn for his determination to pursue this case, and to the British Medical Journal for getting it into the "main-stream" health care literature. Hat-tip to <a href="http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/12/dr-aubrey-blumsohn-pharmagossips-person.html">PharmaGossip</a>.

British Medical Journal Interviews Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

Đọc thêm »

16 Dec 2009

The Reappearance of a Ghost of Seasons Past

About a year after we started Health Care Renewal, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest. The early posts were <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/another-challenge-to-integrity-of.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-blumsohn-procter-gamble.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/no-protection-for-whistle-blowers.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/paying-for-silence-updating-blumsohn.html">here</a>. In <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-summary-and-much-documentation-of.html">this post</a>, we summarized the case thus: <ul><li>Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, a senior lecturer at Sheffield University, and Professor Richard Eastell performed a research project on the effects of the drug risedronate (<a href="http://www.actonel.com/index.jsp">Actonel</a>, made by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals [P&G]) under a <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/contract.pdf">contract</a> between P&G and the University.</li><li>Although the research contract designated Blumsohn and Eastell as "Investigators" under whose direction the project would be carried out, Blumsohn was not given access to the original data collected by the project.</li><li>Despite numerous requests, (like <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20050525mckay.pdf">this one</a>), P&G <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20030619email.htm">refused access </a>to this data <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/attorneyreq.pdf">repeatedly</a>. Blumsohn was concerned that he and Eastell could be accused of scientific fraud if they continued to make presentations and write articles and abstracts without access to the data which they were supposedly writing about.</li><li>Blumsohn became suspicious that some of the analyses done by P&G could be misleading, especially <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20030909audio.htm">related to a graph shown to him that omitted 40% of patient data</a>.</li><li>Blumsohn objected to <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20030424email.htm">P&G arranging for papers and abstracts to be written by a professional writer</a>, but with Blumsohn listed as first author. Blumsohn was concerned that such ghost-written documents were mainly meant to convey "key messages" in support of P&G's commercial interests.</li><li><a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20030910audio.htm">Eastell warned Blumsohn </a>not to aggravate P&G, because the company was providing a grant to the University which "is a good source of income."</li><li>After repeated failed attempt to get the data, Blumsohn complained to numerous officials at Sheffield University, including <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20040526eastell.pdf">Eastell</a>, medical school Dean <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20050708weetman.pdf">Tony Weetman</a>, University Vice-Chancellor <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20050814bouche.pdf">Robert Boucher</a>, and the Head of the University's Department of Human Resources, <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/20050627boucha.pdf">Ms R Valerio</a>.</li><li>Still unable to get the data, he spoke with news reporters about his case. At this point, Sheffield suspended him, but then <a href="http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/gag.doc">offered him a severance agreement </a>if he signed a contract binding him not to make any detrimental or derogatory statements about the University and its leaders.</li></ul>So the case involved suppression and manipulation of research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower. It provides lessons about the downsides of letting commercial firms sponsor and hence control human research designed to evaluate the products or services they sell; and of academic medicine becoming dependent on research money from such firms for such research. Although Health Care Renewal, being US based, most often writes about such issues in the US, this case is a reminder that they are global. (Note that we posted more about this case in 2006, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/01/more-fall-out-from-blumsohn-procter.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/02/blumsohn-tours-washington-to-raise.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/05/dr-aubrey-blumsohn-on-north-american.html">here</a>, but since then it has not gotten much public attention.)Last weekend the (UK) Guardian <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research">returned</a> to it: <blockquote>The Guardian has learned that one of Britain's leading bone specialists is facing disciplinary action over accusations that he was involved in 'ghost writing'. The General Medical Council will call Professor Richard Eastell in front of a fitness to practice committee. Eastell, a bone expert at Sheffield University, has admitted he allowed his name to go forward as first author of a study on an osteoporosis drug even though he did not have access to all the data on which the study's conclusions were based. An employee of Proctor and Gamble, the US company making Actonel, was the only author who had all the figures. Experts believe the practice is widespread in Britain. In a letter published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, which carried the original study, he stated: 'In the original paper one of the authors, a statistician working for P&G, Ian Barton, had full access to all the data.' The authors had full access to all the analyses of the data that they requested, he said – but those analyses were carried out by the company. The letter, published in 2007, also acknowledged flaws in the study. A later independent analysis of the data 'identified some errors and poor practice', he wrote. The study was designed to show the strengths of Actonel which was in fierce competition with a rival bone-strengthening drug called Fosamax, made by Merck. Eastell's paper concerned a study carried out on behalf of Proctor and Gamble, comparing the bone density of women prescribed Actonel with others who were not. Only the company knew which women were on the drug and which were taking something else. Eastell's colleague, Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, wanted the codes which would say which of the patients who suffered fractures had been on the drug. The company refused. Blumsohn took his concerns to Eastell, but in a conversation which Blumsohn says he taped , Eastell said he was concerned that persistent requests might damage the relationship they had with the company. Eastell is said to have told him: 'The only thing that we have to watch all the time is our relationship with P&G. Because … we have the big Sheffield Centre Grant [from P&G] which is a good source of income, we have got to really watch it.' . </blockquote> So, after four years, this case has generated an official hearing of sorts. The hearing is obviously late, and seemingly will only be devoted to only one aspect of this case (ghost writing). However, at least our friends in the UK are doing something. I cannot recall a single case that resulted in any serious consideration of imposing negative consequences on anyone who was accused of suppressing research, manipulating research, endorsing ghost-writing, or intimidating a whistle-blower. In fact, many of the more troubling cases have never resulted in any sort of public discussion either at the institutions at which they occurred, or at any organization with relevant regulatory, or even just moral authority. So the GMC hearing is at least a step forward. Two cheers for the British GMC, and none for US universities, academic medical centers, professional societies, and government regulators. (If anyone can remind me of a case in which there was a public discussion at the relevant institution, or some public consideration of the case by a regulatory agency, professional society, or some group with moral authority, please remind me of it, and I would be happy to post about it.)

The Reappearance of a Ghost of Seasons Past

Đọc thêm »

25 Sep 2009

Load more posts