Retrospective on the Blumsohn - Procter and Gamble -Sheffield University Affair: the Unhappy Lives of Whistleblowers and the Anechoic Effect

Introduction - the Unhappy Lives of Whistleblowers

The UK Times Higher Education Supplement just published a feature on the unhappy fate of academic, including academic medical whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers in universities can hit the national headlines for shining light on issues of public interest, only for their careers to end up in very dark places.

Some of higher education’s most prominent whistleblowers paint a bleak picture about the impact on their subsequent careers. They talk about being persecuted by colleagues after coming forward. But even after leaving their jobs, some believe they still suffer a legacy. One talks about being 'effectively blackballed' from ever working again in higher education.

For other whistleblowers, exile is self-enforced.

It is noteworthy that the graphic for the article showed a whistleblower with a ball and chain, but the ball is in the shape of a whistle.

Summary - The Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University Case

The article focused on the case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, which we discussed recently, and have posted about since 2005 (here).  For all relevant posts, look here.

The Times provided a good summary.  It is worth quoting it here, as a reminder of a very important case which has had far too few echoes.

[The] case began in 2002, when he was working in the research unit led by Richard Eastell, professor of bone metabolism at Sheffield. The unit was researching the effects on patients of Procter & Gamble’s anti-osteoporosis drug Actonel.

Blumsohn raised concerns about abstracts for conference papers submitted by P&G, under his primary authorship, but without the firm having granted him full access to the drug trial data.

His concerns were first raised with senior colleagues and then reported in Times Higher Education in 2005.

The data analysis for the research was carried out by P&G, which paid for the research and which did not release key data to Eastell and Blumsohn. According to Blumsohn, this prevented honest publication of research.

After coming forward, Blumsohn has previously said, his other research work was used as the basis for a series of research grant applications that Eastell sponsored and signed off for a PhD student, without acknowledging Blumsohn’s input and despite his objections.

In 2005, he told the university that he was speaking to the media after losing faith in its internal systems for dealing with such allegations. He was subsequently suspended and told by Sheffield that he could lose his job over alleged 'conduct incompatible with the duties of office', including 'briefing journalists' and 'distributing information, including a Times Higher article, to third parties with apparent intent to cause embarrassment'.

He later reached a settlement with the university and it dropped all disciplinary charges. However, he left the university in 2006.

Blumsohn says of what happened afterwards: 'I withdrew from medicine completely, I withdrew from academia and ultimately withdrew my medical registration as well.'

Given the impact on his career, does Blumsohn regret coming forward with his concerns? 'I had to do that,' he says. 'As a scientist, I couldn’t just go along with having my name attached to manipulated publications, based on secret data ghost-analysed by pharmaceutical companies.'

Could Sheffield have dealt with his concerns more effectively? 'I don’t know how Sheffield could have done better, or indeed how any medical school could have done,' Blumsohn replies.

He clarifies: 'The problem these days is that some parts of universities – most notably medical schools but some other parts as well – have so many conflicts of interest and financial imperatives guiding what they do, I’m not sure other universities would necessarily have behaved differently from Sheffield. When millions of pounds are at stake both in private fees for academics and university funding, and a pharmaceutical company is wanting you to dance, the pressure to go along and to get staff to remain quiet is overwhelming.'

A few comments are in order.  While universities appear to be places of free speech and open discussion, note that Sheffield apparently could punish Dr Blumsohn simply for talking to journalists, but particularly for simply saying things that might embarrass university leaders.  So university leaders wish not to be embarrassed seems to trump free speech and academic freedom.

Second, Dr Blumsohn rightly pointed out that the issue was really scientific integrity, not embarrassment.  He tried to stop what he perceived as manipulation of clinical research by a pharmaceutical company to support its vested interests in selling a particular drug.  Such manipulation threatened scientific integrity, and ultimately threatened patients' health.

Third, Dr Blumsohn also rightly pointed out in retrospect that what university managers really seemed to fear was not just personal embarrassment, but curtailment of money flows from industry to their institution that made them look good, and presumably become more wealthy.

Few Echoes in the Discussion of Whether the Former Procter and Gamble Executive on Whose Watch the Affair Occurred Should be US Veterans Affairs Secretary

As we discussed here, a top executive at Procter and Gamble whose remit at the time the affair occurred seemed to include Actonel and research related to it was nominated to run the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and hence the whole VA health system.  Only two blogs, including this one, raised the issue of the Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University affair as relevant.  There was no other public discussion of this connection.  The former Procter and Gamble executive was confirmed, and now runs the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Summary

This is another example of how leaders of big health care organizations remain unaccountable for their organizations' misdeeds.  The lack of any mainstream discussion of the Blumsohn - Actonel - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University affair in connection to the VA nomination demonstrate the anechoic effect.  Even the most determined whistleblowers often do not get the public notice they deserve, and their revelations do not have the effects they ought to have, even after the whistleblowers have paid a very high price to try to spark public discussion.

So anyone thinking about trying to get public notice for some fact or issue that threatens the powers that be will think twice, both about the potential downsides to the whistleblower, and the potential ineffectiveness of these attempts.    

In the past two weeks, I have heard in confidence about three stories in which discussion of issues that might offend the powers that be, specifically, the leaders of big health care organizations, has been suppressed.  I am convinced that for every Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, there are dozens who are aware of deception, other unethical conduct, even crime and corruption that could harm patients and patient care, but are afraid to speak out.

Of course, as long as these issues remain hidden, the damage to patients and the public's health continues to be done.

We clearly need changes in public policy to protect whistleblowers and foster free speech about important issues in academics and health care.  We need health care professionals, health care researchers, health care policy makers, and those among the public who care about health care and health care need to organize to support free speech and academic freedom.  Otherwise, the anechoic effect will continue to befog all of health care.

Hat tip to Dr Carl Elliott writing for the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog.

What Does the Blumsohn - Procter and Gamble -Sheffield University Affair Say About the Fitness of the Latest VA Secretary Candidate?

Introduction - New Leadership for the US Department of Veterans Affairs

After reports of problems with access, manipulation of data about waiting times, and most recently "a corrosive culture," the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the country's large government run health system, has had a massive leadership overhaul.  President Obama's nominee to head the agency is now Robert A McDonald, former CEO of Procter and Gamble.

The choice of a former CEO or a large corporation was called "unorthodox" by the Boston Globe, but many saw merit in a business leader running the VA.  As reported by the Globe, House Speaker John Boehner said that as a "private sector" leader,  Mr McDonald is the "kind of person who is capable of implementing the kind of dramatic systemic change that is badly needed and long overdue at the VA."  The Chairman of Boeing, also a member of the P&G board, hailed Mr McDonald as the person who "navigated Procter & Gamble through the difficult post-financial-crisis years, where he expanded business in developing markets and made substantial progress improving the efficiency of the company’s internal operations...."

On the other hand, a column in the Washington Post suggested that expertise in "selling Tide and Pantene" might not be relevant to fixing the VA. Yet aside from a single article on the Ring of Fire web site, all news coverage and discussion so far has ignored Mr McDonald previous experience in health care leadership, but also that his relevant track record ought to raise questions about his fitness for the VA position.

Procter and Gamble and Health Care

According to Mr McDonald's official P&G biograpy, after various roles in various countries, before becoming CEO, 

Bob returned to the U.S. as the Vice Chairman of Global Operations (2004 to 2007) and later P&G’s Chief Operating Officer (2007 to 2009).

Although not widely known as a pharmaceutical company, P&G actually had a subsidiary that made prescription drugs, which Mr McDonald sold off in 2009 (see this Wall Street Journal report.)  As we noted here, its products still include over the counter pharmaceuticals (e.g., Pepto-Bismal, Metamucil, Prilosec OTC).  Also, while Procter & Gamble does not make it very obvious, it has owned MDVIP, a company that employs physicians to provide concierge medical services, since 2010, although as Cincinnati.com just reported, it will soon sell this unit to private equity.  So during Mr McDonald's tenure, his company was to some extent a pharmaceutical company, and a health care provider.

The Blumsohn - Procter and Gamble - Sheffield University Case

Furthermore, on Mr McDonald's watch as Vice Chairman of Global operations and Chief Operating Officer, there was a case involving Procter and Gamble that raised multiple concerns about the ethics of its pharmaceuticals operations.  We first posted about the case in 2005 (here).  For all relevant posts, look here. In 2009 we described the case thus,

The case involved suppression and manipulation of research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower. It provides lessons about the downsides of letting commercial firms sponsor and hence control human research designed to evaluate the products or services they sell; and of academic medicine becoming dependent on research money from such firms for such research.

We previously summarized the case's events

• Dr Aubrey Blumsohn, a senior lecturer at Sheffield University, and Professor Richard Eastell performed a research project on the effects of the drug risedronate (Actonel, made by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals [P&G]) under a contract between P&G and the University.
• Although the research contract designated Blumsohn and Eastell as "Investigators" under whose direction the project would be carried out, Blumsohn was not given access to the original data collected by the project.
• Despite numerous requests, (like this one), P&G refused access to this data repeatedly.
  Blumsohn was concerned that he and Eastell could be accused of scientific fraud if they continued to make presentations and write articles and abstracts without access to the data which they were supposedly writing about.
• Blumsohn became suspicious that some of the analyses done by P&G could be misleading, especially related to a graph shown to him that omitted 40% of patient data.
• Blumsohn objected to P&G arranging for papers and abstracts to be written by a professional writer, but with Blumsohn listed as first author. Blumsohn was concerned that such ghost-written documents were mainly meant to convey "key messages" in support of P&G's commercial interests.
• Eastell warned Blumsohn not to aggravate P&G, because the company was providing a grant to the University which "is a good source of income."
• After repeated failed attempt to get the data, Blumsohn complained to numerous officials at Sheffield University, including Eastell, medical school Dean Tony Weetman, University Vice-Chancellor Robert Boucher, and the Head of the University's Department of Human Resources, Ms R Valerio.
• Still unable to get the data, he spoke with news reporters about his case. At this point, Sheffield suspended him, but then offered him a severance agreement if he signed a contract binding him not to make any detrimental or derogatory statements about the University and its leaders.

So the case involved suppression and manipulation of research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower. It provides lessons about the downsides of letting commercial firms sponsor and hence control human research designed to evaluate the products or services they sell; and of academic medicine becoming dependent on research money from such firms for such research.

Although this case occurred in the UK, it involved actions by the US based Procter and Gamble.  While many of the events in the case occurred before 2004, from 2004 to 2009 it became clear that Procter and Gamble was not going to go easy on Dr Blumsohn.  For example, according to Dr Blumsohn, in 2006, P&G released some scientific data relevant to the case, but not complete enough data to be meaningful.  In 2007, there was still shady business going on involving scientific abstract submissions apparently made in Dr Blumsohn's name by P&G operatives.

Since Procter and Gamble never made any known attempt to apologize, explain its conduct, or ameliorate Dr Blumsohn's plight during 2004 - 2009, as one of the most senior leaders of Procter and Gamble, seemingly with direct authority over its pharmaceutical operations in the UK during that time period, Mr McDonald ought to be held accountable for the company's misbehavior described above.  To my knowledge, though, no one at P&G, including Mr McDonald, has ever admitted responsibility or been made accountable in any way.  

Summary

Since Mr McDonald recently was an executive of a company that sold prescription and non-prescription pharmaceuticals, and provided direct health care, confirmation as Veterans Affairs secretary could be regarded as a transit through the revolving door, and hence open to question.  Since Mr McDonald got $15,928,015 in total compensation during his last year as CEO (2012-13) (see the company's 2013 proxy statement), and had accumulated 2,247,593 shares of stock or equivalent by 2013, worth approximately $179 million at today's price of $79.67, his ability to understand the needs of the often poor veterans whom the VA serves is also open to question. 

More importantly, while Mr McDonald held high executive positions at Procter and Gamble, the company was involved in a dodgy affair involving conflicts of interest, manipulation of research, and attempted silencing of whistle blowers.  In my humble opinion, given that these events occurred directly on his watch, his fitness to run a huge health care system ought to be in question unless his responsibility for these events is disproved.

The widespread huzzahs for Mr McDonald as potential VA leader based mainly on his exalted status as CEO of a big corporation show that many in the US still see corporate CEOs as aristocracy.  True health care reform would hold health care leaders accountable, particularly for upholding the health care mission and putting patients' and the public's health ahead of revenue generation and especially personal profit.

ADDENDUM (7 July, 2014) - Link to McDonald's official P&G biography fixed. 

ADDENDUM (8 July, 2014) - This post has been re-posted on Naked Capitalism, and on Open Health News. 

Abort, Retry, Fail? - Lancet Avoided Much Recent Unpleasantness in Reporting on New Gates Foundation CEO (Including Her Defense of $55,000 a Year for Bevacizumab)

The April 26, 2014 issue of the prestigious journal Lancet used two full pages and two separate articles by the same author to discuss the ascension of the Gates Foundation new CEO, Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann.(1-2)

Two Somewhat Redundant Lancet Articles

Dr Desmond-Hellmann trained as an oncologist, spent time working on AIDS and Kaposi's Sarcoma in Uganda, but then spent much of her career as a pharmaceutical/ biotechnology executive, as described in the first article,(1)

After returning from Uganda, Desmond-Hellmann joined the nascent Taxol development programme at Bristol-Myers Squibb, before being poached by Arthur Levinson, the then Head of Research and Development at Genentech. Levinson was convinced Genentech had a strong pipeline of anticancer therapies, and brought Desmond-Hellmann on board to help guide them through to approval. The pipeline went stratospheric, and took Desmond-Hellmann with it. By 2009 she had been promoted to President of Product Development, having overseen the introduction of two of the first gene-targeted therapies for cancer, bevacizumab and trastuzumab.

After Genentech was bought out by Roche, Dr Desmond-Hellmann became Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco,

Over the next 5 years, Desmond-Hellmann instituted wide-ranging reforms at UCSF, including aggressively cutting administrative waste and putting a greater emphasis on partnerships with the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors, coming in for some criticism in the process. 'Some of the press suggested one of Sue's goals was to take UCSF out of the public system', says [current UCSF interim Chancellor Sam] Hawgood. 'Nothing could be further form the truth. She was very proud of the public mission of UCSF, and had no intent to alter that.' Mindful of how damaging perceived conflicts of interest could have been to her credibility during her time at UCSF, Desmond-Hellmann says she 'specifically avoided being on pharma and biotech boards'.

The article suggested we should expect nothing but great things from Dr Desmond-Hellmann at the Gates Foundation,

it is Desmond-Hellmann's ability to forge partnerships and her wide network of contacts, rather than her knack for cutting administrative overheads, that will have seemed most attractive to the Gates Foundation as it looks to speed up the process of translating research into results.

The second article used remarkably similar wording(2), e.g., regarding her career in the pharmaceutical business,

Soon after joining the Taxol team, Desmond-Hellmann was leading it; the kind of progress that was bound to catch the eye of Genentech's then Head of Research and Development Arthur Levinson. What happened next is part of pharmaceutical folklore, as Desmond-Hellmann helped to mastermind one of the most profitable drug-development pipelines in history, including the approval of two of the first targeted cancer therapies, for Genentech.

Also, regarding her career at UCSF,(2)

 Desmond-Hellmann from embarking on a programme of structural reforms to cut administrative inefficiency and forge closer links with private industry, something that still stirs up controversy. 'There definitely were concerns, and there remain concerns in academia, about conflicts of interest, privatisation. I think what helped most was that I was clear in my actions that I did and do value that UCSF is a public institution, and I think my actions spoke and speak for themselves', she says. But Desmond-Hellmann is robust in her defence of the importance of public—private partnerships for driving innovations that ultimately benefit society.

Finally, regarding expectations for her performance in the future,

'There are a lot of people who are looking to the foundation, and in the world of philanthropy there's a lot of visibility to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, so I certainly feel accountable and responsible for doing a good job.' But, she asserts, 'I'm up for it'. With a track record that ranges from clinical research, global health, and the sharp end of commercial drug development, she seems to be made for it.

So Lancet, a very well known journal which normally is very parsimonious about its use of the printed page, used two full pages for two very similar articles about the new Gates Foundation CEO.  Both articles made the same points,
-  Dr Desmond-Hellmann had a brilliant career in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business, and was responsible for the development of several important cancer drugs
-  Dr Desmond-Hellmann made major reforms at UCSF, including pushing for some sort of privatization, and for public-private partnerships, while dismissing concerns about any resulting conflicts of interest
 -  Dr Desmond-Hellmann is likely to be very successful as Gates Foundation CEO.

What the Articles Did Not Say

When Dr Desmond-Hellmann's appointment as Chancellor of UCSF was announced in 2009, I suggested that she was a very unusual choice because of aspects of her track record in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business.  Yet the Lancet's two articles on her prospects as new Gates Foundation CEO ignored these considerations, and ignored or downplayed aspects of her track record as UCSF Chancellor.  In particular,

Defending $55,000/ Year Bevacizumab

As I noted in 2009, Dr Desmond-Hellmann's defense as a Genentech executive of the sky high prices the company was charging for its new drugs was well documented in an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute)(3)

And cancer biologics, though among the most costly drugs, are still only a tiny fraction of total GDP, said Genentech's Susan Desmond-Hellmann, president for product development, at AACR.

Hellmann and others argue that with these drugs’ potential to alleviate the huge societal burden of cancer, biologics are worth the cost.

The industry has responded to concerns about costs by putting more resources into patient assistance programs. When Genentech received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for bevacizumab in lung cancer last October, it also announced a cap on expenditures for the drug for patients with family incomes less than $100,000 a year. In 2005, the median household income was $46,326.

Originally announced as $55,000, the cap actually doesn't kick in until after a patient has received 10,000 mg. At the wholesale acquisition cost, 10,000 mg is about $55,000, said Genentech spokesperson Edward Lang.

What the companies have not done so far is reduce prices. The reason, industry representatives say, is the need to recoup massive research and development costs, including high manufacturing costs for biologics. These costs have long kept biotech companies from making much of a profit overall, Hellmann said. She noted that profit levels of publicly held biotech firms have 'hovered close to zero' throughout the life of the industry.

Whatever the company's nominal profit levels, its executives, including Dr Desmond-Hellmann, have made extremely good money.   According to Genentech's 2008 proxy statement, (the last available, since the company has been bought out by Roche), Dr Desmond-Hellmann's total compensation was $8,361,348 in 2007 and $7,820,142 in 2006. In 2007, her total compensation was equal to 0.3% of the firm's total net income.

Of course, since 2007, and especially since 2009, the problem of hugely expensive pharmaceuticals as a driver of health care costs, especially in the US, has become all too apparent.  The Lancet articles were completely silent about this aspect of Dr Desmond-Hellmann's track record, and what implications it might have for her new role of a foundation that spends $3 billion a year, mainly ostensibly to improve the health of poor people.

Since she began as Chancellor of UCSF in 2009, other aspects of Dr Desmond-Hellmann's track record came to light that might have a bearing on how she will conduct herself as Gates Foundation CEO. 

Investments in Tobacco Stocks

As I posted in 2010, then NY Times reporter Duff Wilson discovered that Dr Desmond-Hellmann and her husband (also a physician), had stock holdings in Altria, the parent company of tobacco company Phillip Morris USA, worth between $100,000 and $1,000,000.  When this made public, they abruptly sold the stock.  The head of the UCSF tobacco control center then said,  “I do find that kind of shocking, but at least she got rid of it,...”

The goals of tobacco companies seem completely antithetical to those of a medical school, especially one with a tobacco control center, and incidentally seem antithetical to those of the Gates Foundation, which has a tobacco control initiative, with a stated goal:

to reduce tobacco-related death and disease in developing countries by preventing the initiation of new smokers, decreasing overall tobacco use, and reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.

The Lancet articles were silent on this issue.  

Questions Whether Industry Partnerships Threaten the University Mission

In 2011, I posted about Dr Desmond-Hellmann's vigorous push to create public-private partnerships, which seemed meant to turn UCSF into a de facto drug company research and development contract shop.  At the time, I noted that many of her arguments seemed to be based on logical fallacies, and that she never provided any good evidence for her claims of marvelous new "innovations" that would result from such supposed partnerships.  The Lancet articles did not mention any substantive concerns about this issue.

Dismissing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest

In 2012, I posted about how Dr Desmond-Hellmann also dismissed concerns that public-private partnerships could lead to damaging conflicts of interest, again employing several logical fallacies.  In particular, she implied that medical academics should no longer just do research to advance knowledge, but had become responsible for getting their "discoveries to society," and therefore would have to "start a company or work with a company to commercialize a product."  She did not seem to acknowledge the possibility that academics could make discoveries, but perhaps other people would be better at turning these discoveries into useful products.  The Lancet articles were silent on these issues.

Minimizing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest due to Membership on the Board of Corporations with Health Care Agendas

As noted above, Dr Desmond-Hellmann stated that she demonstrated her sensitivity to the issue of conflicts of interest affecting academic health care by avoiding membership on boards of directors of "pharma or biotech" companies.  These, of course are not the only sorts of for-profit corporations who have health care agendas.  This statement appears to have been carefully worded to avoid dealing with Dr Desmond-Hellmann's membership since 2010 on the board of directors of Procter & Gamble (see the company's 2013 proxy statement.)   While Procter & Gamble is no longer a major pharmaceutical company, it has a Global Health and Grooming unit, whose products include over the counter pharmaceuticals (e.g., Pepto-Bismal, Metamucil, Prilosec OTC).  Also, while Procter & Gamble does not make it very obvious, it has also owned MDVIP, a company that employs physicians to provide concierge medical services, since 2010, although as Cincinnati.com just reported, it will soon sell this unit to private equity.   So while perhaps Dr Desmond-Hellmann could claim that while she was UCSF Chancellor she was not on the board of directors of any pure pharmaceutical or biotechnology company, she was certainly on the board of a major international company that sells pharmaceuticals and other health care related products, and employs physicians to provide direct patient care.  (Presumably, she will be staying on the P&G board while she is Gates Foundation CEO.)  The Lancet did not mention this issue. 

Privatizing UCSF

Also, the Lancet articles seemed to contradict other reports that Dr Desmond-Hellmann made a serious attempt to privatize at least some aspects of UCSF, but that this effort failed. (Note that quote by Dr Hawgood from the first article above.)    

However, in 2012, I posted about a prevalent conspiracy theory that University of California managers were trying to take the university private.  However, it seemed to be more of a theory, because at least one news report included statements that Dr Desmond-Hellmann wanted to take UCSF out of the state university system.  This week, an article in the San Francisco Business Times suggested that this was a serious plan, in that Dr Desmond-Hellmann

ran into opposition when she  proposed in early 2012 that some of UCSF's functions be separated from the rest of the UC system.

The autonomy coming from the separation, Desmond-Hellmann argued at the time, would have meant that the sole graduate-level-only campus in the 10-campus UC system would no longer subsidize UC undergrad programs. It also would have translated into UCSF having more control over the money it generates from its medical center and other operations.

However, the same article noted that the current University of California President,

dismissed as 'loose talk' a more than two-year-old plan for UCSF to weaken its ties to the larger UC system. 'UCSF is firmly part of the system and will remain so,...'

The current president seemed to thus acknowledge that this plan existed, however "loose" it may have been.  Clearly, the Lancet articles suggested rather that Dr Desmond-Hellmann did not have any privatization plans, whatever the criticisms people could have made of them.  

Summary

We have often discussed the anechoic effect, how it seems taboo to discuss certain unpleasant facts and issues relevant to the health care system, especially those that might lead to questions about the abilities of the current leadership of large health care organizations.  This taboo seems to particularly affect public discourse within the health care system, such as is found in medical and other scholarly health care journals.

The Lancet is one of the largest circulation and most prestigious medical journals.  The Gates Foundation is one of the biggest foundations working in the health care sphere.  In their latest letter, Bill and Melinda Gates stated,

Our foundation is teaming up with partners around the world to take on some tough challenges: extreme poverty and poor health in developing countries, and the failures of America’s education system.

Yet when the Lancet devoted two full pages to often repetitive discussion of the new leader of the Gates Foundation, it avoided discussion of several issues that might have lead to questions about whether her future leadership would really be about challenging "poor health in developing countries," rather than promoting the interests of large pharmaceutical/ biotechnology and other health care related companies, as she had apparently tried to do before.  That such an important medical journal would publish such incomplete health news reporting suggests the operation of the anechoic effect.

I hope the questions that ought to be raised about Dr Desmond-Hellmann's priorities as CEO of the Gates Foundation will eventually be put to rest.  It would be more reassuring, however, if they could be confronted directly rather than obfuscated.  As long as big health care journals remain so deferential to big health care leaders, concerns we have raised before about whether health care is now primarily lead by a small in-group of executives and managers who may put private interests ahead of entrusted responsibilities remain acute.

As we have said many, many times, true health care reform would ensure that leaders of big health care organizations really put patients' and the public's health ahead of private interests. 


References

1.  Holmes D. New CEO takes the reins at the Gates Foundation.  Lancet 2014; 383: 1440.  Link here.
2.  Holmes D. Susan Desmond-Hellmann taking charge at the Gates Foundation.  Lancet 2014; 383: 1455.  Link here.
3.  McNeil C. Sticker shock sharpens focus on biologics.  J Nat Cancer Instit 2007; 99: 910-914.  Link here.

ADDENDUM - Material about MDVIP as subsidiary of Procter & Gamble added 5 May, 2014 PM. 

Logical Fallacies in Defense of Conflicts of Interest Employed by a Leader of Academic Medicine

We have repeatedly discussed the adverse effects of conflicts of interest on health care.  Recently, I argued that the most pernicious are conflicts of interest created as an incentive for trusted health care leaders, usually respected health care professionals or academics, to promote the vested interests of those who pay them, in the guise of the leaders' professional roles.  In this capacity, the leaders are often dubbed "key opinion leaders" by those who employ them, but may be regarded as mere "salesmen" by the corporate personnel who recruit them. (See posts here and here)  These relationships may be hidden, often behind confidentiality agreements, unless revealed by litigation.  Documents revealed by discovery in legal actions showed how companies planned other organized stealth marketing efforts for drugs that included activities by KOLs (e.g., see post here about marketing of Lexapro, and here about Neurontin).

However, defenses of conflicts of interest continue to appear regularly.  The latest example, which incorporates an important twist, appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.  It was in the form of a "Boss Talk"  interview with a leader of a major health care organization (whose identity we will discuss later.)

The title of the interview indicated that the interviewee was not "worried about industry ties" of academia or of health care professionals.  Conflicts of interest were clearly its main focus.  For example, it began,

Many universities are wringing their hands over the increasing coziness of medical schools and their corporate partners.

Then it stated that the interviewee:

has no such qualms.

The defense of this lack of qualms was heavily based on logical fallacies.

Biased Sample or Hasty Generalization

The main reason for this lack of concern appeared to be complete disregard of the more serious kinds of conflict of interest briefly described above. The interviewer asked:

What are the trickiest conflicts of interest to navigate?

The answer was:

Surgery is particularly challenging. Let's say you're a physician and you come up with a new hip replacement. You invented it so you're going to make a lot of money. But if you're going to do my surgery, I want you to put in the device you think is best. How do you separate that, when the person is the inventor and the great technician?

This may be tricky, but is arguably not the most tricky kind of conflict of interest.

The trickier example of the key opinion leader hired as a salesman was not raised by the interviewer or the interviewee. Such a case was graphically revealed by testimony of the aborted TMAP trial which implicated the former state mental health director as hired by Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Janssen to "promote ­Risperdal as a safe and effective medication." (See this post.)

Industry spokespeople and key opinion leaders themselves tout KOLs as clinical, educational, and/or scientific experts chosen for their expertise to advance medicine, science and public health.  There have been  documented instances (e.g., see posts here and here) in which defectors from marketing departments of commercial health care corporations described KOLs as salespeople who could be more influential hidden within their professional or academic cloaks.  Even some physicians paid to be speakers on behalf of pharmaceutical corporations have acknowledged their role as salespeople in fancy dress (see post here).  There are cases of documents revealed by discovery in legal actions that show how companies planned organized stealth marketing efforts for drugs that included activities by KOLs (e.g., see post here about marketing of Lexapro, and here about Neurontin).

Perhaps the interviewee was unaware of these issues.  Whether due to ignorance or deliberate avoidance, failing to consider the full spectrum of conflicts of interest, and specifically ignoring those with the greatest likelihood of adverse effects, appears to be a logical fallacy in this instance.  If deliberate, it appears to be reasoning from an (intentionally) biased sample, if not, it appears to be a hasty generalization.

The interview also included a few other choice logical fallacies that went unchallenged by the interviewer.

False Dilemma

The interviewer asked:

What do you tell professors who won't work with drug or biotech companies?

The response was:

I think that's a huge mistake. If you're a professor now, and you want to get your discovery to society, you either need to start a company or work with a company to commercialize a product.

Of course, in the "good old days," academic researchers got their "discoveries to society" simply by publishing them. Developing and marketing products based on their discoveries, while worthwhile undertakings in their own rights, were not considered part of the academic mission. Professors could still do this, if their goal was not to get rich. Yet the Bayh-Dole act allowed academic institutions to make money from their professors' discoveries, and the rush to commercialize the university has been on ever since. So while professors and academic institutions who are motivated mainly by money might not consider just putting the knowledge they discover in the public domain, that course remains possible, just not so lucrative.

The assertion that the only way to get a "discovery to society" is to start or work with a company is simply false, and using this assertion in an argument appears to be an example of a false dilemma.

Straw Man

The interviewee worked another argument into the same paragraph:

When professors have told me they won't work with companies anymore because they feel they'll have this scarlet letter, I think: 'Wouldn't that be sad if all the best scientists and clinicians won't work with companies because the public has said they're evil?'

I doubt that any of even the most vociferous critics of the conflicts of interest that now befog health care have claimed that those involved are evil, much less that they are have successfully convinced the whole public at large that anyone who "works with companies" is evil. Implying that this would be the result of criticism of conflicts of interest does not appear to be supported by evidence, and is probably flat wrong. Asserting it here appears to be an example of the straw man fallacy.

Summary

So the Wall Street Journal has added to our collection of defenses of conflicts of interest that seem mainly to be based on logical fallacies. 

We have noted that logical fallacies are increasingly deployed to defend the status quo in health care, and particularly to defend the interests of those who are profiting the most from the current dysfunctional system.  We have noted that several defenses of the conflicts of interest generated by financial relationships between physicians and medical academics on one hand and commercial health care firms on the other, were based on logical fallacies.  (See examples here, here,  here, and here.)  I have yet to see a coherent, logical, fact-based argument that the benefits for patients' and the public's health of physicians and medical academics working part-time as consultants, advisers, speakers, and directors of health care corporations outweigh the obvious risks of biasing medical decision making, education and research in favor of vested interests.

In 2011, I noted, "I have also yet to see an argument in favor of conflicts of interest made by anyone who does not have such conflicts."At least, however, up to that point I had not noted any such arguments made by people who had much power to enforce their views, as opposed to the ability to just express them.  The interview discussed above, however, was a person who has such power.

The interview was with Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann, the relatively new Chancellor of the University of California- San Francisco, who was just named one of the "25 most influential people in biopharma."  She has recently been advocating a change of direction towards commercialization for her campus, one of the most prestigious health care oriented universities/ academic medical centers in the country.  She previously justified this redirection again using logical fallacies (look here). 

She also appears to yet another advocate for conflicts of interest who has her own conflicts.  As we noted here, Dr Desmond-Hellmann had little academic experience before she became Chancellor, but had worked her way up in the corporate pharmaceutical world, leaving her position as President for drug development at Genentech after it was taken over by Roche. 

As we noted previously, even after that, Dr Desmond-Hellmann apparently has not completely left the corporate world.
- A web-site for a speakers' bureau in which she apparently still participates lists her as a current "Advisor of Genentech since April 2009."
- In 2010, Dr Desmond-Hellmann joined the board of directors of Procter and Gamble, a company which makes many health related products, although it sold its global pharmaceutical business. Last year, the company made an agreement with Teva to market over-the counter medications (see this Reuters article). Note that she got this position despite apparently not having any prior personal investment in P&G stock. However, per the company's 2011 proxy statement, she appears to be in line to collect over $250,000 a year in compensation for this position.

It does not seem impossible that these ongoing commercial interests may influence how she acts in her role as Chancellor.  Yet while it may be unsurprising, it is very disappointing that conflicts of interest are now being uncritically and illogically publicly defended by people in positions to exert so much influence on health care.

The noted cognitive psychologists George Loewenstein, Sunita Sah, and Daylian Cain just asserted in JAMA [Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM. The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA 2012; 307: 669-670. Link here.]

Conflicts of interest, including fee-for-service arrangements, are at the heart of the astronomical increases in health care costs in the United States, and transparency is not substitute for more substantive reform.

True health care reform requires such substantive reform of the financial arrangements among corporations that sell health care services or products and health care professionals and others who make decisions about patients' or the public's health. To decide how to accomplish such reform, we need a better discussion informed by logic and evidence, sans logical fallacies. Those who lead health care ought to be able to participate in this discussion under these conditions.

Logical Fallacies to Support Putting a Major Academic Medical Center into the Contract Research Organization Business

Two uncritically positive biographical features on UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann MD appeared within the last two weeks, one in the New York Times, suggesting the game is afoot.  That game appears to be the Chancellor's new strategic direction for the university. 

A New Strategy for "Increasing Collaborations" with Industry

Per the NY Times, the university has just made a huge investment in bricks and mortar,

the school’s gleaming new building for stem-cell research and its enormous new waterfront campus, Mission Bay, which is becoming a medical and biotech empire.

Now, perhaps to pay for it,

Dr. Desmond-Hellmann hopes to supplement the usual sources of income like patient fees, grants and tuition by increasing collaborations between the university and the biotech companies that have sprung up in the Bay Area — many of them spinoffs from research that began at the university.

Dr Desmond-Hellmann described the general direction thus:

Her vision for the university is to make it 'the world’s pre-eminent health sciences innovator.' That means 'unparalleled' care for patients, brilliant faculty and staff paid enough to stay and fast translation of scientific discoveries into treatments.

That seems worthwhile, if quite a bit vague.
Making "Collaboration," "Innovation," and "Translation" More Explicit

An article in Xconomy sounded similar themes, but was more explicit. First, Dr Desmond-Hellmann said,

I’m sticking my neck out there and saying the world is changing very quickly, and yet our aspiration at UCSF is to be a world leader in health science innovation

So it is time to jump on the bandwagon,

The old way of doing things doesn’t really work anymore.

But the Xconomy article was more explicit about what sort of changes she envisioned, what innovation she had in mind, and what "translation" means in this context:

Often, some of the best research ideas would get handed off from academia to a company at a very raw stage of development. But few venture capitalists are funding startups at this early stage of development these days, and Big Pharma R&D has always tilted more heavily toward D than R. The economy has put more pressure on companies to tilt that balance even further away from research, and more toward late-stage development that has a chance to bear fruit in the near-term.

Universities need to recognize this is how things are. If they want to truly translate their innovations into products that help patients, they will have to carry the research a little further downfield themselves. Some Big Pharma companies have already shown they are willing to sponsor this kind of on campus work at UCSF and elsewhere.

So,

Working in collaboration with pharma companies is definitely a part of the future of advancing health, Desmond-Hellmann says. Financially, these deals are small potatoes, and aren’t going to close any budget gap. Even if UCSF researchers made a breakthrough cancer drug that generates billions of sales per year, it would likely only throw off a royalty stream to the university worth a few million a year—nice, but not exactly a big deal for a multi-billion-dollar institution.

Instead, the collaborations are about improving the flow of basic research through development. Pharma companies need new products to preserve and grow their bottom lines, and they aren’t doing so hot at inventing them on their own. When budget cutters ask questions about how taxpayer dollars are spent on campus, academic centers need to be able to say something like, 'We discovered a breakthrough drug that helps people live longer, better lives,' instead of just 'We got a cool paper published in Nature.'

Just to underline that,

Big Pharma R&D operations, rich as they may be, are feeling the same pressure to make cuts as universities. What’s needed now are the creative partnerships, where someone knowledgeable about the whole process (like maybe a Desmond-Hellmann) steps in and finds a way to more seamlessly bring together these two factions around what they have in common.

And the brave new world is almost here already,

UCSF has struck a number of creative partnerships with companies like Pfizer, Sanofi, and Bayer, which are being closely followed at other universities. UCSF has also found a way, with the help of some big-time philanthropy, to break ground on two ambitious projects—a $1.5 billion hospital complex and a $200 million neurosciences research facility in the Mission Bay district. There in the same neighborhood, the university has also continued to support QB3, an incubator where academic scientists are starting companies that test whether their ideas just might have what it takes to become new drugs, devices, or diagnostics.

So let us try to make Dr Desmond-Hellmann's new direction clear: what she meant by innovation and translation was doing contract research and development for big pharma and big biotech. The goal is not just to discover new knowledge, but to develop new products.  That should bring in a lot of money, which can pay for all sorts of fancy new buildings.

A New Direction Supported by Logical Fallacies

The problem is, as I hinted above, the arguments for this new direction were mainly based on logical fallacies.
Begging the Question

Note that the key argument in support of turning the university into a pharma/ biotech research and development shop was, "if they [universities] want to truly translate their innovations into products that help patients," they must develop those products themselves.  This begged these questions:
-  Should they want to develop products?
-  Why are they the only ones who can do so? 

These questions were never asked in either article, perhaps because their answers are obviously "no."  Universities' missions are to discover and disseminate knowledge.  Developing and marketing products are not part of their missions.  Furthermore, there are lots of corporations that ought to be able to develop and market pharmaceuticals and devices outside of universities.

Appeal to Common Practice/ Bandwagon

Another argument in favor of Dr Desmond-Hellmann's radical new plan was "universities need to recognize this is how things are," in that "the old way of doing things doesn't really work anymore." This is an example of two logical fallacies, the appeal to common practice, and maybe the bandwagon fallacy more so. An assertion is made that the world is changing, the change cannot be stopped or even questioned, so we all just have to climb on the bandwagon.

Straw Man and Begging the Question (Again)

The Xconomy article also noted:

Some academics sneer at this late-stage research/early-stage development work. It’s a cultural attitude Desmond-Hellmann wants to change. 'There’s a technical competence in taking a discovery from a lab and turning it into a medicine. It’s embarrassing that people don’t honor that technical competence. You sometimes hear it called 'applied' or 'obvious' or some other pejoratives. But it’s my expertise. I do take that personally. There is a technical competence. It needs to be understood, put into curriculum, and valued.'

Here Dr Desmond-Hellman seemed to be using the straw man fallacy, by setting up unattributed arguments against her cause that she could easily refute.

Meanwhile, however, another question she begged was what exhibiting such technical competence has to do with the mission of the university. As we will discuss further below, the mission of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge. "Technical competence" may be required to do so, but exhibiting technical competence per se is not the goal. (Consider: if the university had faculty members who were competent amateur automobile mechanics, would it fulfill the mission to establish a university automobile repair business using these faculty members' technical competence?)

Another implied begged question was: if this competence ought to be a subject taught at the university, how would the need for such teaching require the university to do contract research and development for industry?

Appeal to Authority

Both articles also seemed to try to support Dr Desmond-Hellmann's ideas by emphasizing first that she had "a stunningly successful career in the pharmaceutical industry," perhaps so described because her "years in pharmaceuticals left her, by her own account, 'very, very wealthy," (It did allow that at the end of her career at Genentech, after she had become president of product development, "her compensation (base pay, stock and other payments) was more than $8 million a year. She also owned hundreds of thousands of shares of Genentech stock, worth $95 a share.")

Also, despite her apparent membership in the top one percent of the population in terms of income, the Times article took pains to note "she is so nice," and again, "she's a very nice person."

So the implication is that because she is successful, rich, and nice, her arguments and ideas must be correct.  This seems to be an appeal to authority.
Questions That Should be Asked

Neither the author of the NY Times article nor the author of the Xconomy article sought to ask her any of the questions that were begged, or to otherwise raised by Dr Desmond-Hellmann's grand plans.  So let me try.

How Does Becoming a Contract Research Organization Fulfill the University's Mission?

However her new plans are described, they entail hiring out the university's facilities and faculty to develop new products, drugs and perhaps devices. Yet the university's mission is to discover and disseminate knowledge. How will proprietary research and development fulfill that mission? 

In fact, there are reasons to worry that the new focus on for-hire drug research and development will undermine the mission.  Any new knowledge produced is likely to be labelled trade secrets. Faculty who work as drug and device development contractors will not be teaching students. Students caught up in drug and device development will be working for big corporations, possibly without pay, and without any ownership of anything they may discover in the process.

How Will the Resulting Institutional and Individual Conflicts of Interest be Managed?

If the university becomes dependent on being paid for drug and device development, can university faculty remain unbiased teachers and researchers? Will they not feel pressured to show favor to the products, policy goals, and leadership of the corporations that are paying them?

Why Would Faculty and Students Want to Participate in a Contract Research Organization Cloaked in Academic Robes?

Will faculty want to be labelled as contract workers? What will that do for their academic credibility? Will students want to be educated by people beholden to specific corporations and corporate projects?

Should Patients Want Care from a Contract Research Organization?

How will they be confident that the drugs they are prescribed and the devices used in procedures they undergo are not chosen because their doctors and nurses feel beholden to the corporations that make them?

Summary

UCSF's new multimillionaire ex-biotechnology executive Chancellor seems determined to push the university into a much closer relationship with the drug, device and biotechnology industry. In fact, she seems to be advocating that the university should become, in effect, a contract research organization to service this industry. So far, this radically new direction seems to be provoking no questions, much less dissent, even though the public justification for it was apparently based on a string of logical fallacies.

However, it is not clear how taking one of our major academic medical centers in this commercial direction will not harm, much less benefit its mission.

For 30 odd years in the US we have been making health care more commercial, and have to show for it the world's most expensive but hardly the world's best health care system. This increasingly inaccessible system which provides care of uncertain quality has made the one percent who run it very rich.

Those of us in the 99 percent need to question how making it even more commercial will do any of us any good.

Post-Script: You Can Take the Executive Out of Biotech, But You Can't Take Biotech Out of the Executive

When Dr Desmond-Hellmann first become UCSF Chancellor, we questioned how someone steeped in the culture of commercial biotechnology could distinguish that culture from the academic mission? (You heard that question here first.)  The answer now seems to be that her current ambitions substantially blur the academic mission with the pursuit of money and commercial success.

Maybe one reason for this blurring of distinctions is that Dr Desmond-Hellmann apparently has not completely left the corporate world.
- A web-site for a speakers' bureau in which she apparently still participates lists her as a current "Advisor of Genentech since April 2009."
- In 2010, Dr Desmond-Hellmann joined the board of directors of Procter and Gamble, a company which makes many health related products, although it sold its global pharmaceutical business. Note that she got this position despite apparently not having any prior personal investment in P&G stock. However, per the company's 2011 proxy statement, she appears to be in line to collect over $250,000 a year in compensation for this position.

It does not seem impossible that these ongoing commercial interests may influence how she acts in her role as Chancellor.

ADDENDUM (5 November, 2011) - As per Reuters,

Consumer products maker Procter & Gamble Co and Israeli drugmaker Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd on Thursday gave details of a joint venture they have created to sell over-the-counter medicines.

The joint venture, which was initially announced in March, will combine Teva's expertise in drug marketing with P&G's expertise in branding to expand their presence in the $200 billion consumer healthcare industry.

So P+G is becoming more of a health care company, increasing concerns about how her position as a director of the company, which gives her fiduciary responsibility for its finances, may influence her in her role as Chancellor.

"The 'Third Rail' that No One Wishes to Analyze" - Conflicts of Interest Affecting Health Care Foundations

On Health Care Renewal we discuss what we think are important issues affecting health care that seem to be rarely mentioned in the medical and health care literature and the "main-stream media."  In particular, we focus on problems in health care leadership and governance, how they threatened the core values of health care professionals, and how these threats contribute to rising costs, and declining access and quality. 

One of our preoccupations has been why these problems remain so anechoic.  A new article in PLoS Medicine [Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here. ] seems to have uncovered another missing link to the anechoic effect. 

Private Foundations and Their Influence on Global Health

The article noted the importance of the influence of private foundations on global health:

While corporate involvement in and government aid for health has been extensively analyzed and critiqued in the public health literature, less attention has been paid to the impact of private donors on public health. Over the past decade, the bulk of new health aid designed to reach the Millennium Development Goals has come from individuals and corporations. The influence of this private philanthropy on global health is profound and transformative.

So,

Private foundations operate outside the typical boundaries of democracy; unlike government ministries, private foundations cannot be influenced in the same way by the communities affected by the foundations' actions. In the interests of public health, and particularly because poor communities affected by foundations do not automatically have a feedback mechanism to influence the decisions of private funders, we argue that it is appropriate to subject private foundations to the same scrutiny received by public institutions.

In this paper, we examine the scope of potential conflicts of interests that exist among the private foundations that are major funders of global health.

I would add that private foundations may have an outsize influence not only on global public health policy, but also on health care policy within particular countries, including the US.   This may arise because of the perception that they are more independent and nearer the cutting edge than are government and industry sources of funding. For example, here in the US, the Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations have been widely perceived by health care, services and policy researchers as especially influential and respectable sources of funding, possibly partially because of the perception that they have less self-serving agendas than do government agencies and for-profit health care corporations.

The Possibility of Conflicts of Interest

The authors noted increasing concern about conflicts of interest affecting the activities of for-profit corporations involved in public health and health care:

because tensions can arise between the profit motives of corporations and the promotion of public health. Whereas corporations make products that can improve health (such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines) and relationships between public health institutions and for-profit corporations can be seen as positive opportunities for corporations to improve public health, corporations also make products that damage health (such as tobacco or unhealthy foods). And because some corporations have a vested interest in the activities of public health bodies, there have been documented attempts to influence the public health agenda by establishing associations with health care institutions

Thus the authors thought it also made sense to address conflicts of interest affecting private foundations operating in the global health space. They performed a case-study of the largest global health foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while also briefly discussing four other large global health foundations, the Ford Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

Stock Holdings

The article noted that the Gates Foundation had substantial investments in food and pharmaceutical companies:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's corporate stock endowment is heavily invested in food and pharmaceutical companies, directly and indirectly .... The Foundation holds significant shares in McDonald's (9.4 million shares representing about 5% of the Gates' portfolio), and Coca-Cola (>15 million shares, over 7% of the Foundation's portfolio, not counting Berkshire Hathaway holdings). In 2009 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sold extensive pharmaceutical holdings in Johnson & Johnson (2.5 million shares), Schering-Plough Corporation (14.9 million shares), Eli Lilly and Company (about 1 million shares), Merck & Co. (8.1 million shares), and Wyeth (3.7 million shares).

Also, the Foundation indirectly invests in food and pharmaceutical companies through its holdings of Berkshire Hathaway:

Berkshire Hathaway's largest investment is in Coca-Cola. It owns an additional 8.7% of Coca-Cola (Warren Buffett's firm is the largest shareholder in Coca-Cola, having stock worth >$10 billion dollars) and 6.3% of Kraft (Buffett is also the largest shareholder of Kraft). Berkshire Hathaway also has significant ownership in GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, and Procter & Gamble, and is one of the main global investors in the latter two pharmaceutical companies.

The article also noted that the Ford, Rockefeller, Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had significant holdings in Coca-Cola, Kellogg, PepsiCo, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nestle, NovoNordisk, YumBrands, Pizza Hut, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi-Aventis, and that the Ford Foundation held shares in a tobacco company, Lorillard, and the Kellogg and Rockefeller Foundations "were indirectly invested in tobacco corporations through conglomerate equity funds...."

This admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have financial holdings that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food, pharmaceutical, and even tobacco companies.

Conflicts Affecting Foundation Leadership

The article noted that:

Several of the [Gates] Foundation's members of the management committee, leadership teams, affiliates, and major funders are currently or were previously members of the boards or executive branches of several major food and pharmaceutical companies ... including Coca-Cola, Merck, Novartis, General Mills, Kraft, and Unilever....

In addition,

Further overlaps between Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leadership, other private foundations, and circular flows of personnel with food and pharmaceutical companies were observed .... Such patterns of interlinked board directorships, common among corporations and nonprofit organizations, were similarly found in the other private foundations studied.

Examples provided in an appendix were:

Anne Fudge, the chairman of the Gates Foundation’s US Program Advisory Panel is also on the board of directors of Rockefeller Foundation (in addition to General Electric, Novartis, Unilever, and Harvard University, among others).

Furthermore,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Again, this admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have leaders who have financial relationships that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food and pharmaceutical companies.

Program Initiatives Possibly Related to Conflicts

The article asserted:

The bulk of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial transfers in global health have been to programs developing medical technologies....

In particular,

Overall, about 42% of all funding was spent on health care delivery or increasing access to drugs, vaccines, and medical commodities, while an additional one-third was allocated to technology development (mainly for vaccines and microbicides) or basic science research.

Specific programs were related to companies in which the the Gates Foundation or its leaders had financial interests:

The Foundation has established partnerships with the Coca-Cola Company, which, in the words of the Foundation, are intended to 'create new market opportunities for local farmers whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola's locally-produced and sold fruit juices'.

Also,

many of the Foundation's pharmaceutical development grants may benefit leading pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline....

and

Johnson & Johnson has entered a clinical partnership to develop new HIV-prevention technology, noting 'the work between Johnson & Johnson and the Gates Foundation is a strong, strategic, comprehensive relationship'.

While there are many needs in global health, and many approaches to addressing these needs, this limited case-based data suggested that a strong focus of the Gates Foundation was on approaches that revolve around drugs, devices and biotechnology, again which would tend to favor the vested interests of the pharmaceutical companies which the Foundation holds in its investment portfolio and with which some of its leaders have or had financial relationships.

Discussion

While the data from this case-study were limited, they do suggest that major private foundations that support global health, and by extension, health care, services, and policy research may have institutional conflicts of interest, and their leaders may have personal conflicts of interest. It is possible that these conflicts have steered global health policy to favor vested interests, particularly towards approaches that depend on drugs and devices, perhaps instead of more effective ones using less technology.

Furthermore, it is possible that that these conflicts of interest have helped create the anechoic effect.  Conflicts of interest could have pushed the foundations in directions that favored specific vested interests, and away from others that may threaten such interests.  Many of the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal may threaten such interests.  Private health foundations have been notably uninterested in addressing how problems in leadership and governance of health care organizations can threaten core values, They have been particularly uninterested in addressing specific tactics used when leadership is ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt, e.g., deceptive practices used to promote products and services, and promote policies favorable to vested interests, including, of course, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest (such as the cultivation of key opinion leaders).

In fact, a particular version of the anechoic effect surrounds the private foundations themselves, as described by Stuckler et al:

Although the philanthropic activities of wealthy individuals and corporations have attracted controversy in the past (Text S1), their charitable mission often means that they face less scrutiny than governments; critical analysis of foundations can be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds us.' As a result, within the global health community, private donors are sometimes viewed as the 'third rail' that no one wishes to analyze.

We have often commented on the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest in health care. Now we see them affecting even the most respected private health care foundations which were previously regarded as independent. The web of conflicts of interest may benefit those personally involved, but to the detriment of patients' and the public's health. Unfortunately, as the web has gotten more complex, it stifles awareness of the problem by the unconflicted, much less their ability to respond.

At a minimum, I urge that private health care foundations fully disclose their institutional conflicts of interest, and the conflicts of interest of their leaders. If they wish to maintain their previously sterling reputations, they ought to consider divesting themselves of financial holdings that generate institutional conflicts, and of leaders who have financial relationships that generate personal conflicts.

Hat tip: to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.

Deja Vu All Over Again - Sheffield Researcher Under Threat for Trying to Present Data that Offends Research Sponsor

It's deja vu all over again.  A case reported (so far only) in the UK Times Higher Education Supplement of a biomedical researcher apparently threatened because she tried to present data that did favor a particular commercial health care product. Here is the summary:

An academic has risked the wrath of her university by submitting results to a forthcoming conference without permission.

The University of Sheffield has claimed that the submission has been made in breach of a contract it has with a pharmaceutical company, which funds work in the scholar's field.

Guirong Jiang, a research radiologist who has worked at Sheffield for 13 years, is due to face a disciplinary hearing over her actions this week.

Her findings - submitted to a symposium of the European Calcified Tissue Society (ECTS), to be held in Glasgow in June - add to the debate over what some have claimed is a distortion in the field of osteoporosis caused by the over-diagnosis of vertebral fractures.

Here are more particulars:

Sheffield has censured her for making the submission without the consent of her supervisor, Richard Eastell, head of Sheffield's Academic Unit of Bone Metabolism.

It said her actions breached the terms of a 2007 contract the unit has with pharmaceutical manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis to conduct studies relating to the osteoporosis treatment risedronate, which is sold as the drug Actonel.

It also said Dr Jiang failed to follow 'reasonable requests' to withdraw the submission.

Dr Jiang said she believed her results should be published as they had not been reflected in the unit's previous output.

She added that last December she was informed that her contract would not be renewed when it came to an end this March, which she said had prompted her to throw caution to the wind and publish without permission.

She has queried whether her work is bound by Sheffield's Sanofi-Aventis contract, which stipulates that the company must be allowed to review manuscripts and abstracts prior to publication.

She pointed out that the work was carried out in 2002 when the unit's risedronate work was funded by Procter & Gamble in partnership with Aventis. Dr Jiang added that she had not seen or signed the full Sanofi-Aventis contract.

Dr Jiang is still under threat:

The disciplinary hearing, scheduled to take place on 18 February, will consider the allegation that Dr Jiang 'acted inappropriately in making a direct submission of an abstract to a journal outside unit protocol and in contravention of the terms of the research contract'.

It will also consider the charge that she 'failed to follow a request by her head of unit and head of department to rectify her actions', which 'aggravated a situation which otherwise could have been quickly resolved'.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, academics had the expectation that they could publish or present their research without first acquiring the express approval of their academic superiors (at least as long as their work was original, the research project was under their control, and that they had properly protected the rights of any human subjects). Furthermore, in at least the US, academics are citizens who expect to have free speech.

But as academic institutions became more enamored of and dependent on "external funding," faculty were increasingly pressured to do only sponsored research. The growing dependence on sponsored research allowed the sponsors to try to get more control over how research was done.

In the 1990s, there were several important cases in North America in which academic researchers tried to present or publish results that clashed with their research sponsors' vested interests. Doing so resulted in lesser or greater threats to the faculty. Two of the classic cases of research suppression in the 1990's demonstrated this issue.


* In the "David Kern case," a textile manufacturer, Microfibres Inc., tried to prevent Dr. David Kern, a general internist and occupational medicine physicians at Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island and faculty member at Brown University, from presenting an abstract that described a case-series of a new pulmonary disease, flock-workers lung, that affected workers at Microfibres Inc. factories. Kern did present the abstract, but under a threat, never carried out, of law-suit, Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island removed Kern as head of the Occupational Medicine program, and refused to renew his contract, even though he was an Associate Professor. Brown University was unable to reverse these moves by the hospital, and Brown officials blamed Kern for signing an agreement to protect trade secrets, even though the agreement was unrelated to the research Kern did on the disease, and his research did not obviously reveal any trade secrets. [1-4]

* In the "Nancy Olivieri case," Apotex, a pharmaceutical company, acted against Dr. Nancy Olivieri for revealing preliminary data from a trial of deferiprone, a chelating agent for the treatment of iron overload in thalassemia, suggesting that the drug was often ineffective in treating iron overload, and appeared to be associated with hepatic fibrosis. Ultimately, a report by the Canadian Association of University Teachers also held that her academic freedom was abridged, in the context of a negotiation between the University of Toronto and Apotex over a large donation, and that the hospital harassed Dr. Olivieri during her dispute with Apotex (link here for report)
 
In the early 21st century, there was a case in the UK with spooky similarites to the present case: at the same university involved in the present case, and with at least one participant in common with that case.  About a year after we started Health Care Renewal, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest. Our most recent summary of the case was here. Dr Blumsohn was also doing clinical research on the drug Actonel, again at the University of Sheffield.  He was denied access to the very data he had collected, and to analyses of the data by Procter and Gamble, the then manufacturer of the drug and sponsor of the research.  Dr Blumsohn found that Procter and Gamble seemed to be arranging for ghost-writers to author abstracts about the research based on these hidden analyses.  After he complained to numerous officials at Sheffield, including Dr Richard Eastell, to no avail, he spoke to the press, and thereafter lost his academic position.  The case was just recapped in an interview of Dr Blumsohn published in the British Medical Journal(5).
 
So we seem to have made little progress.  Most clinical research at academic medical institutions is sponsored by firms that make drugs and devices.  The firms try to secure contracts that give them control over most aspects of the research.  Thus, they can determine how the research is designed, implemented, ana analyzed.  If the resulting manipulation still does not yield results that make the firms' products look good, the sponsors can then just suppress them.  Academics who naively think it is their duty to find and disseminate the truth are in jeopardy when they attempt to present or publish results that challenge their research sponsors' vested interests.
 
Suppression of clinical research, however, is bad for patients and honest health care professionals, since it misleads about the benefits and harms of tests and treatments.  Suppression of clinical research dishonors research subjects who volunteer for studies, often at risk to themselves, thinking they may help to advance science and clinical care.  Suppression of clinical research undermines the fundamental mission of academia: to seek out and disseminate the truth.
 
Those who truly want better health care, here in the US and globally, should advocate for clinical research done without the influence of those with vested interests in how the research comes out. 
 
Thanks to an anonymous Health Care Renewal scout who located the Times article. 
 
References


1. DG Kern, RS Crausman, TH Durand et al. Flock worker's lung: chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 261-272. (link here)
2. Shuchman M. Secrecy in science: the flock worker's lung investigation. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 341-344. (link here)
3. Marsh DJ. Intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1317-1318. (link here)
4. Shuchman M. Consequences of blowing the whistle in medical research. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 1013-1015. (link here)
5.  Cyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: academic who took on industry. Brit Med J 2009; 339:b5293. (link here)

British Medical Journal Interviews Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

About a year after we started Health Care Renewal, in late 2005, we wrote multiple posts about the complex and unfortunate case of Dr Aubrey Blumsohn's attempts to keep a research project honest.  Our most recent summary of the case was here.  The case involved suppression and manipulation of research, ghost-writing, institutional conflicts of interest, and attempts to silence a whistle blower. It provides lessons about the downsides of letting commercial firms sponsor and hence control human research designed to evaluate the products or services they sell; and of academic medicine becoming dependent on research money from such firms for such research.

The case was just re-capped in some detail on the occaision of an interview of Dr Blumsohn published in the British Medical Journal, just available on-line yesterday.  [Cyer C. Aubrey Blumsohn: academic who took on industry.  Brit Med J 2009; 339:b5293.  Link here.]  Dr Blumsohn's final words in the interview were:

It’s hard to encourage anyone to speak out about poor practice in the current environment. This case sums up what has gone wrong with systems set in place to ensure safety and integrity in scientific medicine. It would help if regulators put as much effort into responding to serious critics and whistleblowers as they do producing glossy brochures and yet more guidance.

My hat is off to Dr Blumsohn for his determination to pursue this case, and to the British Medical Journal for getting it into the "main-stream" health care literature.

Hat-tip to PharmaGossip.