{"id":61314,"date":"2015-11-10T08:00:40","date_gmt":"2015-11-10T13:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=61314"},"modified":"2015-11-10T04:39:25","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T09:39:25","slug":"have-no-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/11\/10\/have-no-place\/","title":{"rendered":"have no place&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div align=\"justify\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"256\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/nejm-conflict.gif\" \/><sup><em><font color=\"#200020\">O! be some other name:<br \/>                    What&rsquo;s in a name? that which we call a rose<br \/>                    By any other name would smell as sweet;<br \/>                    So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call&rsquo;d,<br \/>                    Retain that dear perfection which he owes<br \/>                    Without that title.<\/font><\/em><\/sup><\/div>\n<div align=\"right\"><sup><em><font color=\"#200020\">William Shakespeare<\/font><\/em><\/sup><\/div>\n<p>         <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>It&#8217;s hard to imagine that the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/jama.jamanetwork.com\/article.aspx?articleid=2444293\"><font color=\"#600000\">Journal of the American Medical Association<\/font><\/a> can publish something like the viewpoint piece on the right and expect anything except mockery, and plenty of it. The notion that changing the name of Conflict of Interest to a Confluence of Interest might change the fundamental truth that whatever passes for objectivity in science [or for that matter anything else] evaporates when there is a personal stake involved. This is a bit of wordplay that belongs in the category of &quot;the dog ate my homework.&quot;<\/sup><\/div>\n<hr size=\"1\" \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2015\/11\/09\/richard-lehmans-journal-review-9-november-2015\/\">Richard Lehman&rsquo;s journal review<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><strong><font color=\"#0033ff\">BMJ<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\">9 November 2015<\/div>\n<p><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Disingenuous denial<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#600000\">JAMA<\/font><\/strong>. 2015 314:1791. &ldquo;<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/jama.jamanetwork.com\/article.aspx?articleid=2444293\">Confluence, Not Conflict of Interest<\/a>&rdquo;  now appears in print, and leads me to break my rule and comment on this  article a second time, because I think it marks a low point for <em>JAMA<\/em>.  It aligns the journal with the disingenuous deniers who pretend that  conflicts of interest don&rsquo;t arise when authors and investigators write  about work that they have a vested interest in promoting. It joins  together <em>JAMA<\/em> with the <em>NEJM<\/em> which took a similar  stance in a series of opinion papers earlier this year. This is a sort  of Republican Tea Party of the soul, where you know you are saying  something false and daring people to contradict you, knowing that their  very engagement is a form of legitimation. And besides, you have power  over them and they don&rsquo;t over you. Blake called this place Ulro, and it  leads to nothing but harm and barrenness &mdash; for those involved as well as  for everyone else. But it is perfectly possible to get out of Ulro and  build a better world.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">Richard Lehman&#8217;s column in the BMJ usually hones in on the central issues in his journal reviews, but this time he&#8217;s especially quick to get to the heart of the matter. This absurd piece in the JAMA goes against an essential feature of &quot;human nature&quot; and the authors seem to think that surrounding an obviously wrong premise with several pieces of forced logic might fool someone. They begin:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Given the broad array of  stakeholders, the diversity of approaches, and the concern that such  policies might restrain innovation and delay translation of basic  discoveries to clinical benefit, the Institute for Translational  Medicine and Therapeutics at the University of Pennsylvania recently  convened an international meeting on conflict of interest&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">If you follow Conflict of Interest issues in psychiatry, you are unlikely surprised that this viewpoint article comes from the University of Pennsylvania. Psychiatry Chairman Dwight Evans has himself been involved in several COI investigations. In a particularly egregious example involving Paxil Study 352, the University exonerated Evans with a remarkable comment:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.pharmalot.com\/2012\/03\/upenn-looks-the-other-way-at-ghostwriting\/\" target=\"_blank\">UPenn Looks The Other Way At Ghostwriting<\/a><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"big\"><strong><font color=\"#004400\">Pharmalot<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"middle\">By Ed Silverman<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" class=\"small\">March 1st, 2012<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">The  University of Pennsylvania  has denied  allegations made by one of its  professors that several  other academics  &ndash; including his department chair  &ndash; allowed their names  to be added to a  medical journal manuscript, but  gave control of the  contents to  GlaxoSmithKline, according to his  attorney. The study,  which was funded  by the drugmaker and the National  Institutes of  Health, looked at the  impact of the Paxil antidepressant  on patients  with bipolar disorder.  <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">At the same time, the university has  acknowledged a claim by  the  professor, Jay Amsterdam, that the 2001  study was ghostwritten by   Scientific Therapeutics Information, his  attorney tells us. However, he   says the university is not planning on  taking any action in connection   with the ghostwriting. The study,  which was published by the American   Journal of Psychiatry [<a href=\"http:\/\/ajp.psychiatryonline.org\/article.aspx?Volume=158&#038;page=906&#038;journalID=13\" target=\"_blank\">see here<\/a>], did not mention that STI played any role.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">&ldquo;They said his allegations were not  meritorius, although  they did  find that the publication at issue was  ghostwritten,&rdquo; says  Bijan  Esfandiari, the attorney, citing a letter  and other documents he   received from the university. &ldquo;<strong><font color=\"#990000\">They  acknowledged that a marketing firm   was involved in drafting, and  everything associated with, the issue.  But  in response to our  complaint, they said that, at the time these  events  took place, which  was between 1998 and 2001, ghostwriting was  standard  practice and  everyone was doing this, so therefore, we&rsquo;re not  going to  punish any  individuals<\/font><\/strong>&rdquo;&hellip;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"150\" vspace=\"4\" hspace=\"4\" border=\"0\" align=\"left\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/caduseus.gif\" \/>While there was, indeed, a lot of corruption in the years around the turn of the century, to dismiss it with something tanamount to &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">but there was a lot of that going around<\/font><\/em>&quot; as if it were a fad or a pesky virus hardly rises to any reasonable medical or academic standard. It&#8217;s an argument as lame as &quot;<em><font color=\"#200020\">&#8230; such  policies might restrain innovation and delay translation of basic  discoveries to clinical benefit<\/font><\/em>.&quot; Medicine arose in ancient history and survived for centuries not based on powerful scientific advances. Those advances are only in their second century. Medicine prevailed because it was among the few professions that was able to adhere to a consistent and enduring ethical stance. A resistance to outside Conflicts of Interest has been an implied element of that ethic throughout our history. Arguments such as those expressed in this JAMA viewpoint article simply have no place in our tradition or our literature. And to have these recent articles actually advocating <u>for<\/u> conflicted authorship in our two major journals [<strong><font color=\"#000001\">NEJM<\/font><\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJMe1503623\">Revisiting the Commercial&ndash;Academic Interface<\/a>, <strong><font color=\"#600001\">JAMA<\/font><\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/jama.jamanetwork.com\/article.aspx?articleid=2444293\">Confluence, Not Conflict of Interest<\/a>] is cause for alarm&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>O! be some other name: What&rsquo;s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call&rsquo;d, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. William Shakespeare It&#8217;s hard to imagine that the Journal of the American Medical Association [&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_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61314","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=61314"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61338,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61314\/revisions\/61338"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}