{"id":43510,"date":"2014-01-30T15:38:35","date_gmt":"2014-01-30T20:38:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=43510"},"modified":"2014-01-30T15:48:09","modified_gmt":"2014-01-30T20:48:09","slug":"the-future-remains-in-the-haze","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2014\/01\/30\/the-future-remains-in-the-haze\/","title":{"rendered":"the future remains in the haze&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<br \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.psycritic.com\/2014\/01\/conflicts-of-interest.html\" target=\"_blank\">Conflicts of Interest<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Psycritic<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">January 26, 2014<\/div>\n<p>      <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">The following story was recounted to me by someone who was there:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><em>He was indignant. Outraged, even. He was a department chair. A prominent psychiatrist and author of textbooks. A Key Opinion Leader in the field. How dare the New York Times question him? The psychiatry residents sat in silence as he went on his rant. Every other medical specialty does the same thing! How come they didn&#8217;t go after the orthopedic surgeons or the cardiologists, who made much more money from industry relationships than psychiatrists? They went after psychiatry and psychiatrists because of the stigma surrounding mental health. And what is this whole conflict of interest business, anyway? The New York Times even had an article on Michelle Obama&#8217;s clothing retailer having a conflict of interest. It&#8217;s ridiculous! And the senator who started all this, Senator Grassley? What about all of his campaign contributions? Does he have conflicts of interest?<\/em><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">He had more choice words for the Times and for Senator Grassley, but you get the idea. His mindset seemed to be that because what he was doing would ultimately help patients, he was beyond reproach as long as he was not committing any crimes. Since funding was limited, what was wrong with working with industry? When all the other specialties make more than psychiatrists, why shouldn&#8217;t psychiatrists take part in entrepreneurial activities?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">I was traveling this weekend. When I got home several people had forwarded links to this post by Psycritic. I stopped reading right there and reread it to be sure that I hadn&#8217;t misread the first part &#8211; that this rant had been delivered to a group of trainees. I hadn&#8217;t misread it. Psycritic goes on to relate this story he heard to the one I&#8217;ve been writing about:    <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Not surprisingly, he is no longer the department chair. However, five  years later, this mindset about conflicts of interest still remains with  some [many?] of psychiatry&#8217;s leaders. How else to explain the recent&nbsp;revelations about David Kupfer, chair of the DSM-5 task force? He failed to disclose  that he was part of a company making a dimensional assessment for  depression, both during the DSM-5 process and on an article that he  co-authored with his business partner, statistician Dr. Robert Gibbons,  who seems to be creating a commercial product with public money&#8230;     <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">I wonder what our former chairman thought he was teaching those residents? how he understood why they <em>sat in silence<\/em>? what they thought about his self-serving reformulations [<em>Every other medical specialty does the same thing!<\/em>, <em>They went after psychiatry and psychiatrists because of the stigma surrounding mental health<\/em>, <em>what is this whole conflict of interest business, anyway?<\/em>]? Psycritic calls it a <em>mindset<\/em> which is probably a good way to characterize it. Later, he refers to it as <em>Narcissism<\/em>&#8230; <em>a powerful and dangerous thing<\/em>, an even better way to categorize it.<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">The ends do not justify the means. Just because someone else is doing it  doesn&#8217;t make it right. These may be rote lessons from childhood, but it  seems that some people have conveniently forgotten them. In my opinion,  this most likely happens not because of greed, but when people truly  believe that they are doing good; therefore they must be good, and their  critics must be bad. Narcissism is a powerful and dangerous thing.&nbsp; <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">That&#8217;s well said. I&#8217;ll add a small refinement. One can define a <em>Narcissist<\/em> simply &#8211; <strong><font color=\"#200020\">they believe their own thoughts are right<\/font><\/strong>. We all do that part. But not this part &#8211;<em> <\/em><strong><font color=\"#200020\">even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary<\/font><\/strong>. Sound like <em>paranoia<\/em>? first cousins, siblings, something like that. If everybody isn&#8217;t clapping, they must be out to get you [clear in the example above]. How could someone capable of making such transparent excuses [like a kid on the elementary school playground that got caught throwing rocks or stealing someone&#8217;s lunch money] get to be a chairman of a department at a prestigious medical school? There were a number on Senator Grassley&#8217;s list [Chairmen and Narcissists], and many others who may not have made the list, but were contenders. In fact, some of psychiatry&#8217;s loudest critics have taken such people as the templates for all psychiatrists &#8211; self-serving Narcissists capable of rolling out this kind of bull-shit at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately, there&#8217;s an answer to the why-so-many? question. Here&#8217;s a taste of that answer from my corner of the world:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/10\/04\/health\/policy\/04drug.html?pagewanted=1&#038;_r=3&#038;em\" target=\"_blank\">Top Psychiatrist Didn&#8217;t Report Drug Makers&#8217; Pay<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">New York Times<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\">By GARDINER HARRIS<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">October 3, 2008<\/div>\n<p>    <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">&hellip; In 2004, Emory investigated Dr.  Nemeroff&rsquo;s outside consulting  arrangements. In a 14-page report,  Emory&rsquo;s conflict of interest  committee detailed multiple &ldquo;serious&rdquo; and  &ldquo;significant&rdquo; violations of  university procedures intended to protect  patients. But the  university apparently took little action against Dr.  Nemeroff and made  no effort to independently audit his consulting  income, documents show. Universities,  too, can benefit from the fame  and money the deals can bring &mdash; a point  Dr. Nemeroff made in a May 2000  letter stamped &ldquo;confidential&rdquo; that he  sent to the dean of Emory&rsquo;s  medical school. The letter, which was part  of a record from a  Congressional hearing, addressed Dr. Nemeroff&rsquo;s  membership on a dozen  corporate advisory boards&hellip; <\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">  <strong><font color=\"#990000\">&ldquo;Surely you remember that Smith-Kline  Beecham Pharmaceuticals  donated an endowed chair to the department and  that there is some  reasonable likelihood that Janssen Pharmaceuticals  will do so as  well,&rdquo; he wrote. &ldquo;In addition, Wyeth-Ayerst  Pharmaceuticals has funded a  Research Career Development Award program  in the department, and I  have asked both AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and  Bristol-Meyers [sic]  Squibb to do the same. Part of the rationale for  their funding our  faculty in such a manner would be my service on these  boards&rdquo;&hellip;<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">This is neither an excuse nor a reasonable explanation &#8211; just what happened. When I was at Emory twenty-five years before this article was written, we were flat broke. We had a department that had relied for decades on the NIMH, the State, the County, and some private hospitals for funds to pay our trainees and faculty. That was true in academia medicine-wide, but psychiatry didn&#8217;t have the means other specialties had to generate funding. We were operating on a wing and a prayer &#8211; running on fumes. So when people like Dr. Nemeroff came along who knew how to raise money, they were welcomed with open arms in lots of academic places in similar straits. By that time, I was gone from the full time faculty, but only a mile or two from my old office. And I watched with amazement as the department went from rags to riches. I knew it had to do with drugs and research, because that&#8217;s all they talked about, but like many, I missed the full extent of what that meant.<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">But back to the thread, that&#8217;s how we ended up with such a collection of people in high places &#8211; people who could raise money for the University Departments like the part in red above. And <strong><font color=\"#990000\">&quot;the rationale for  their funding our  faculty in such a manner would be my service on these  boards&quot; <\/font><\/strong>wasn&#8217;t the full story. It was the alliance with the universities, their academic reputations, and their credentials that accounted for pharma&#8217;s generosity &#8211; a commerce that was mutually advantageous for quite a while. While I wouldn&#8217;t argue for a minute with either Psycritic&#8217;s assessment of the <em>mindset<\/em> in question or his diagnosis, the former chairman mentioned above and Emory&#8217;s Dr. Nemeroff below were pointing out that they were just doing what they were hired to do. And, by the way, they were lining their own pockets along the way. I&#8217;m not sure they were just thinking they were doing good as a rationalization, from their vantage, they were doing their jobs. While the back story of all of this is obvious now, it wasn&#8217;t so obvious before &#8211; wrapped in a cloak of science, research, discovery, evidence-based medicine, a lack of transparency, and whatever one calls <em>the sweet smell of success<\/em>. <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">I expect we know the answers to the questions now [<em>what is this whole conflict of interest business, anyway?<\/em> and <em>why shouldn&#8217;t psychiatrists take part in entrepreneurial activities?<\/em>]. It was ultimately a destructive and time-limited solution to a very real problem, one that hasn&#8217;t gone away &#8211; though for the most part, pharma has moved on down the road. When the past is still this close and the damage this apparent, the future remains in the haze. What we know for sure is &quot;not this&quot;&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Conflicts of Interest Psycritic January 26, 2014 The following story was recounted to me by someone who was there: He was indignant. Outraged, even. He was a department chair. A prominent psychiatrist and author of textbooks. A Key Opinion Leader in the field. How dare the New York Times question him? The psychiatry residents sat [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43510"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43510\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43525,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43510\/revisions\/43525"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}