next »

[dellaroux]

When I worked as a unit coordinator in a local hospital, the Friday-afternoon pizza parties for the residents were all, always funded by pharam reps, taking turns.

They'd maybe do a quickie power point on one of the drugs they were pushing, but the point was that the interns were being co-opted from day one.

I'm also very glad I abstained from HRT when I went through early menopause at age 37. Guess mistrusting pharmaceuticals' claims was a good thing. 

[sciencephd]

Let's not get too excited.  Drugs are not developed in universities, so there are few other options to pharma and biotech.

[inthelab]

Let's not get too excited.  Drugs are not developed in universities, so there are few other options to pharma and biotech.

Well, not exactly true.

Look up Gleevec, for example.  And I myself, and my colleagues, are trying to develop drugs for prostate and pancreatic cancer, and HIV.  No drug company is taking our approaches (wish they would and license our technology!).

[sciencephd]

Let's not get too excited.  Drugs are not developed in universities, so there are few other options to pharma and biotech.

Well, not exactly true.

Look up Gleevec, for example.  And I myself, and my colleagues, are trying to develop drugs for prostate and pancreatic cancer, and HIV.  No drug company is taking our approaches (wish they would and license our technology!).

Gleevec is a Novartis product.  If there are drugs that are being developed in the standard sense in academic environments, i am not aware of them.  Development generally means the entire process, not just coming up with a target and promising lead.  What is the funding mechanism ?

[inthelab]

Let's not get too excited.  Drugs are not developed in universities, so there are few other options to pharma and biotech.

Well, not exactly true.

Look up Gleevec, for example.  And I myself, and my colleagues, are trying to develop drugs for prostate and pancreatic cancer, and HIV.  No drug company is taking our approaches (wish they would and license our technology!).

Gleevec is a Novartis product.  If there are drugs that are being developed in the standard sense in academic environments, i am not aware of them.  Development generally means the entire process, not just coming up with a target and promising lead.  What is the funding mechanism ?

Gleevec is a Novartis product but the concept of targeting Bcr/Abl kinase started at the university level.
Novartis certainly did not discover oncogenic kinases, in other words.

[unspoiled]

I am curious to hear if anyone thinks this is partly an MD vs. PhD cultural difference.  MDs just do not get the same type of training in research and certainly I've heard biologists complain about the effects of this on quality of research; perhaps it also extends to what some (not all) MDs consider to be ethical in research and publication.

It's not a MD vs. PhD cultural difference.  MDs and PhDs who complain about each other in research matters do so mostly in terms of vision and philosophy.  I've heard each party complain about the other party's "different quality" training but it should have nothing to do with breaches of ethics.  MDs get excellent and durable ethics training in the US when it comes to direct patient contact and research that directly impacts the quality of life of patients, as is the case here.  

The allegation that some MDs overstepped their bounds, and the fact that sanctions are poorly delineated or slow to come, should not be attributed to "cultural differences" or deficiencies in the ethics curriculum, which BTW is taught pretty clearly and emphatically, starting at first-year medical students' level, especially (among other things) when it comes to the relationship between a physician and pharmaceutical companies.  I believe that's also what the NYT article states.  

Experts in medical ethics condemn this practice as a breach of the public trust.

[inthelab]

However, MDs lack the training in research ethics that is required for PhDs.  They learn a lot of medical ethics, and often don't learn research as med studdents, but later on as post-docs.  They may not have a research ethics requirement where they do their post-doctoral work (the post-docs don't here, but the PhD students do).

[unspoiled]

Just wrote a reply here and lost the text.  Will return. 

[unspoiled]

However, MDs lack the training in research ethics that is required for PhDs.  They learn a lot of medical ethics, and often don't learn research as med studdents, but later on as post-docs.  They may not have a research ethics requirement where they do their post-doctoral work (the post-docs don't here, but the PhD students do).

Yes, there is or should be a line of every PhD graduate's transcript that says they took "Responsible Conduct in Research" seminar at least once or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?

There is also a line on every MD's transcript that says they took first-year Behavioral Science & Ethics, or second-year Medical Ethics, or fourth-year Psychiatry & Ethics, or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?  

And I fail to see how (if that's indeed what happened and/or was admitted to) putting one's name on a paper one didn't do the research for (or supervise the research personally), as long as the research profoundly impacts patient quality of life, is not a breach of elementary medical ethics.   If the etiquette of dealing with pharmaceutical companies, which is definitely med school material and board licensing material, was not respected by some MDs, then why attribute their falling short of their professional standard to the fact they didn't take Responsible Conduct in Research or some other extra course the way PhDs do?  If what I need to be an academically honest professional is already taught during med school and residency and I choose to ignore it,  why attribute it on my not taking it an extra course beyond med school and residency?  

[unspoiled]

Double post, rectified. 

[inthelab]

However, MDs lack the training in research ethics that is required for PhDs.  They learn a lot of medical ethics, and often don't learn research as med studdents, but later on as post-docs.  They may not have a research ethics requirement where they do their post-doctoral work (the post-docs don't here, but the PhD students do).

Yes, there is or should be a line of every PhD graduate's transcript that says they took "Responsible Conduct in Research" seminar at least once or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?

Yes, it is a required course for the PhD students.

There is also a line on every MD's transcript that says they took first-year Behavioral Science & Ethics, or second-year Medical Ethics, or fourth-year Psychiatry & Ethics, or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?  

yes, but different ethics are taught.

And I fail to see how (if that's indeed what happened and/or was admitted to) putting one's name on a paper one didn't do the research for (or supervise the research personally), as long as the research profoundly impacts patient quality of life, is not a breach of elementary medical ethics.   If the etiquette of dealing with pharmaceutical companies, which is definitely med school material and board licensing material, was not respected by some MDs, then why attribute their falling short of their professional standard to the fact they didn't take Responsible Conduct in Research or some other extra course the way PhDs do?  If what I need to be an academically honest professional is already taught during med school and residency and I choose to ignore it,  why attribute it on my not taking it an extra course beyond med school and residency?  

You are right but if one is not taught research, one might not infer what is right and what is wrong in teh research setting, which is very different from the medical care delivery setting.

[unspoiled]

However, MDs lack the training in research ethics that is required for PhDs.  They learn a lot of medical ethics, and often don't learn research as med studdents, but later on as post-docs.  They may not have a research ethics requirement where they do their post-doctoral work (the post-docs don't here, but the PhD students do).

Yes, there is or should be a line of every PhD graduate's transcript that says they took "Responsible Conduct in Research" seminar at least once or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?

Yes, it is a required course for the PhD students.

There is also a line on every MD's transcript that says they took first-year Behavioral Science & Ethics, or second-year Medical Ethics, or fourth-year Psychiatry & Ethics, or something like that.  Is that what you are referring to?  

yes, but different ethics are taught.

And I fail to see how (if that's indeed what happened and/or was admitted to) putting one's name on a paper one didn't do the research for (or supervise the research personally), as long as the research profoundly impacts patient quality of life, is not a breach of elementary medical ethics.   If the etiquette of dealing with pharmaceutical companies, which is definitely med school material and board licensing material, was not respected by some MDs, then why attribute their falling short of their professional standard to the fact they didn't take Responsible Conduct in Research or some other extra course the way PhDs do?  If what I need to be an academically honest professional is already taught during med school and residency and I choose to ignore it,  why attribute it on my not taking it an extra course beyond med school and residency?  

You are right but if one is not taught research, one might not infer what is right and what is wrong in teh research setting, which is very different from the medical care delivery setting.

I have Responsible Conduct in Research on one of my grad school transcripts from the US.

I went to medical school in continental Europe and I did integrated Medical Ethics in second-year Psychology which is on my MD transcript.  Had I attended med school in the US, maybe I'd have Medical Ethics somewhere else but I'd still have it on my transcript. For the purpose of board exams, I need to know the Medical Ethics that's been taught now in the US, so I use US review books designed for US med students and junior residents.  

For the purposes of scientific journal authorship privileges and the researcher/physician's guidelines of dealing with pharmaceutical companies and the like (industry-related publishing, funding, and/or gifts from industry sources), I was taught the same thing in Eastern European Medical Ethics, US Medical Ethics and Responsible Conduct in Research.  These ethical codes may differ for other purposes. They don't differ when it comes to this one basic purpose.  

You are right but if one is not taught research, one might not infer what is right and what is wrong in teh research setting, which is very different from the medical care delivery setting.

But lending one's name to a paper without having directly participated in the research thereof, or without having directly supervised the research thereof, as long as the findings of the paper directly impact the standard of care, or patient quality of life, does constitute a breach of ethics in the medical delivery setting.  Someone who engages in this conduct as an MD cannot justify their actions by claiming ignorance of the fundamental/bench research setting. The ethical guidelines under which this particular type of incident falls are indeed the same for both settings. There's no cultural difference there.  Not geographically, and not by type of degree (MD vs. PhD). Hence my reaction to doctor_torrseal's post.