Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Properly Funded Training Would Aid Physician Independence.
- Rónán Collins (11 September 2002)
-
Ethical conundrums: an Alzheimer's case
- Alexei R. Koudinov (12 September 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Rónán Collins, SpR Geriatric Medicine Leeds General Infirmary, LS1 3EX
Send response to journal:
|
Properly Funded Training Would Aid Physician Independence. Editor, The Royal Colleges' guidelines on receiving gifts from pharmaceutical companies is laudable in its intent, however the accompanying editorial fails to recognise the crucial issue of under-funding of training in its comments1. While pharmaceutical funding to attend international conferences might be construed as inappropriate influence by patients (naïve or not), in reality there is little alternative "independent" sources of funding to attend such valuable forums of education and learning. The average deanery allocation for SpR training is £800 annually (with no roll-over) per individual which would barely fund one conference a year not to mention the requisite courses and national specialty meetings a trainee is expected to attend. In contrast the educational fund per SpR in Ireland is €5000 (£3,250) with a 3 year roll-over to allow trainees access to an educational fund throughout their training as needs dictate. This fund is administered in individual accounts and there is a provision for purchasing essential educational equipment such as laptop computers etc. If society truly believes that pharmaceutical funding of doctors attendance at meetings is inappropriate, than it must also recognise that proper funding needs to be available to ensure we continue to have properly educated doctors abreast of their specialty throughout their working lives. 1. Ethical conundrums: they just keep coming. BMJ Sept 07. Rónán Collins
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexei R. Koudinov, neuroscientist Berezov Academic Lab, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, P.O.Box 1665, Rehovot 76100 Israel
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, I appreciate your traditional solution to ethical conundrums "to publish the problem and then trust to the wisdom of our readers" (7 Sept 2002, BMJ Editors Choice). I also agree with the recent Science magazine editorial (1) that provided important examples of the break of ethics that "all eat away at the sense of community, shared understanding, and public trust that are crucial to science." My own field of Alzheimer's research is entering ethical conundrum case that reserves careful study and attention of the scientific, medical and public communities. What we learn recently is that key figure in Alzheimer's research, Dr. Dennis J Selkoe, member of the editorial boards of many scientific journals and scientific review board and award selection committees (including Potamkin Prize of the American Academy of Neurology) (2) also serves as Director for Elan, a pharmaceutical company involved (among other projects) in the development of Alzheimer's therapy (3, 4, 5). I share the legacy of the major scientific journal (6) that "science is a community venture dependent upon shared values, and trust is one of them" and hope that appropriate bodies will investigate how Dr. Selkoe hidden affiliation with the pharmaceutical industry affected the neuroscience, Alzheimer's research arena and the public trust (7, 8, 9). competing interest: none Sincerely, Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD
References: 1. Kennedy D. Not Wicked, Perhaps,
but Tacky. Science 297, 1237 (2002) [ Full
Text ].
7. Society
for Neuroscience. Guidelines: Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific
Communication (2002) [ Preface
] [ Acrobat
.PDF Full Text ].
|
|||