Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:476 (1 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39493.489213.AD
Thomas P Stossel, professor
1 Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Translational Medicine and Hematology Divisions, Brigham and Womens Hospital, 1 Blackfan Circle, Karp 6, Boston, MA 02115 USA
Tstossel@partners.org
Thomas Stossel argues that restrictions on doctors and academics interaction with commercial companies are damaging research, but Kirby Lee believes it is a price worth paying to maintain public trust
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Most of us politely ignore street evangelists urging us to repent of our sins. Bizarrely however, academic medical administrators base policy on such preaching by anti-business activists. Their sermons, echoed by medical journals and the news media, warn that medical practitioners, educators, or researchers accepting gifts from or payments for services to companies producing medical products compromise their scientific objectivity and professionalism. Strangely, financial transactions between patients, insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors, encompassing 85% of the medical marketplace, do not count as conflicts of interest.
To be sure, corporations, like everyone else, sometimes behave badly and are punished. The key question, however, is whether detailed disclosure of conflicts of interest and stringent prophylactic management are in the public interest. I believe the answer is a resounding no.
Increasingly, conflict of interest policies exclude conflicted experts, however qualified, from writing reviews or editorials in some journals or from advising regulatory bodies
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses