Harvard Psychiatrists Flunk Appearance of Propriety

Three Psychiatrists who perform research at Harvard University have a lot of explaining to do. In fact there are practices throughout the entire profession that give one pause.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, has been a bulldog in examining how money from pharmaceutical companies influences the practice of psychiatry. As a result of the Senator’s tenacity, the following has come to light.

• Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard Medical School’s Psychiatric Department belatedly reported $1.6 million in consulting fees to his university. To protect the integrity of academic research, disclosure of anything more than $10, 000 in money from drug companies is required by the National Health Institute.
• His colleagues Dr. Timothy E. Wilens and Dr. Thomas Spencer belatedly disclosed $1.6 million and $1.0 respectively.
• Dr. Melissa P. Debello of the University of Cinncinnati reported $100,00 in consulting fees. While the drug company Astrazenca, maker of the antipsychotic Seroquel, paid her $238,000.

Dr. Bierderman has championed the controversial practice of prescribing unapproved psychiatric drugs to very young children for bipolar disorder. According to NYT article Researchers Fail to Reveal Full Drug Pay, the number of children diagnosed as bipolar has increased 40 times in a 9 year period. The benefits of prescribing these psychiatric drugs remains unclear.

In 2006 The American Psychiatric Association received 30% of its financing, $63.5 million from the pharmaceutical industry. As quoted in the article Psychiatric Group Faces Scrutiny Over Drug Industry Ties, Senator Grassley’s reaction, “I have come to understand that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions.”

In the states of Vermont and Minnesota, the pharmaceutical industry pays more to psychiatrists than does any other medical specialty. National studies of industry practice have shown that when psychiatrists are on the company payroll, they report more favorable drug findings to the manufacturer than psychiatrists who are not compensated by the company.

It will be important to watch what changes, if any, are made to prevent the appearance of impropriety. I think that the IRS might also be interested in the ability of these learned professors to properly disclose their consulting fees.