MinTankesmie

- Farmasøytiske firmaer hyrer ofte inn "stjerne"-forskere til å selge produkter

Pharmaceutical Companies Often Hire 'Star' Researchers To Sell Products Despite Questionable Evidence, Commentary States (Farmasøytiske firmaer hyrer ofte inn "stjerne"-forskere til å selge produkter til tross for tvilsomme bevis, konstaterer kommentarer)
kaisernetwork.org 25.7.2006
(...) Farmasøytiske firmaer hyrer ofte inn "innflytelsesrike berømtheter (star power), fra en A-liste med navn, som selger et produkt av seg selv, og får med seg andre leger, selv når der ikke er sterke bevis for en behandling," skriver journalist Benedict Carey i New York Times i en kommentar. For eksempel, ifølge Carey, publiserte tidsskriftet Neuropsychopharmacology sist uke en artikkel om en ny depresjonsbehandling -- et brystimplantat til 15 000 dollar, som FDA godkjente i 2005, til tross for bekymringer om effektiviteten til utstyret -- og unnlot å opplyse om forfatternes økonomiske tilknytninger til produsenten, Cyberonics, så vel som navnene på noen av forfatterne og andre konsulenter hyret inn av firmaet. Disse ikke navngitte personer "er akkurat den type eksperter feltet benytter seg av til å evaluere høyst tvilsomme data," skriver Carey, som tillegger at, selv om "utstyr skriker etter flere offentlige analyser," de eneste forskerne med ferdigheter til å evaluere effektiviteten til implantatet "stod... på firmaets lønningsliste." Ifølge Carey, "En av de antatte styrker til amerikansk forskning er at den er desentralisert og mangfoldig. ... Men når mange eller de fleste av de førende skikkelser spiller på det samme lag -- kan et All Star-lag -- som tar ut seg selv gå av med seieren, uten hensyn til forskningen" (Carey, New York Times, 7/25). (Pharmaceutical companies often hire researchers for "star power, an A-list cast with names that themselves sell a product and pull other doctors along, even when the evidence for a treatment is not strong," New York Times reporter Benedict Carey writes in a commentary. For example, according to Carey, the journal Neuropsychopharmacology last week published an article on a new depression treatment -- a $15,000 chest implant that FDA approved in 2005 despite concerns about the effectiveness of the device -- and failed to disclose the financial ties of the authors to the manufacturer, Cyberonics, as well as the names of some of the authors and other consultants hired by the company. Those unnamed individuals "are precisely the sorts of experts the field relies on to help evaluate highly disputed data," Carey writes, adding that, although the "device begged for some more public analysis," the only researchers with the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the implant "were ... on the company's payroll." According to Carey, "One of the supposed strengths of American science is that it is decentralized and diverse. ... But when many or most of the leading figures are playing for the same team -- an all-star team -- that lineup itself may carry the day, regardless of the science" (Carey, New York Times, 7/25).)

(Anm: Interessekonflikter, bestikkelser og korrupsjon (mintankesmie.no).)

- Rettelser av feilaktige opplysninger

Correcting the Errors of Disclosure (Rettelser av feilaktige opplysninger om interessekonlikter)
nytimes.com 25.7.2006
Historier om vitenskapelige interessekonflikter er allerede blitt altfor vanlige. I de siste uker er to ledende medisinske tidsskrifter omtalt i nyhetene for ikke å opplyse om økonomiske bånd til forfattere av publiserte studier, hvor den ene involverer antidepressive legemidler, og den andre medisinsk utstyr godkjent for behandling av depresjon. (By now, tales of scientific conflict of interest have become all too familiar. In recent weeks, two top medical journals have been in the news for failing to disclose the financial ties of the academic authors of published papers, one involving antidepressant drugs, the other a medical device approved to treat depression.)

Men fortielse er bare én side av saken. Firmaene hyrer ikke bare inn leger til å forske — en praksis som teoretisk burde hjelpe virksomhetene til å drive sannferdig forskning — de handler også med forskernes navn. Liksom produsenter shopper en ny film, bruker de innflytelsesrike berømtheter ("star power"), en A-liste med navn, som selger et produkt av seg selv, og får med seg andre leger, selv når det ikke er sterke bevis for en behandling. (But nondisclosure is only part of the story. Companies don’t just hire doctors to do research — a practice that in theory ought to help keep businesses scientifically honest — they also trade on the researchers’ names. Like producers shopping a new a movie, they go for star power, an A-list cast with names that themselves sell a product, and pull other doctors along, even when the evidence for a treatment is not strong.)

Sist uke, opplyste et psykiatrisk tidsskriift med stor innflytelse, Neuropsychopharmacology, at de ville trykke en korreksjon, etter avsløringer om at de ikke hadde opplyst om økonomiske bånd til forfattere av et arbeid som drøfter behandling mot depresjon. Behandlingen, et brystimplantat til 15 000 dollar, som sender elektriske pulser til hjernen, ble godkjent for depresjon i 2005, etter intens debatt om dets effektivitet. (Last week, an influential psychiatry journal, Neuropsychopharmacology, said it would print a correction, after revelations that it did not disclose the financial ties of authors of a paper reviewing a new treatment for depression. The treatment, a $15,000 chest implant that sends pulses of electricity to the brain, was approved for depression in 2005 after intense debate over its effectiveness.)

Minst like viktig som de manglende opplysninger om økonomiske bånd var forfatterne selv, og andre konsulenter som utstyrsprodusenten, Cyberonics Inc. of Houston, hadde hyret. (At least as important as the failure to disclose financial ties were the authors themselves, and other consultants that the device manufacturer, Cyberonics Inc. of Houston, had hired.)

Blant dem er dr. Charles Nemeroff, en av landets forskere med mest innflytelse og redaktør av Neuropsychopharmacology; dr. Dennis S. Charney ved Mount Sinai School of Medicine, redaktør i Biological Psychiatry; og dr. A. John Rush ved University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, som ledet den største statlige studie på depresjon. (Among them are Dr. Charles Nemeroff, one of the nation’s most influential research psychiatrists and the editor of Neuropsychopharmacology; Dr. Dennis S. Charney, of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, the editor of Biological Psychiatry; and Dr. A. John Rush of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, who led the largest-ever long-term government study on depression.)

Dette er akkurat den type eksperter innen fagområdet stoler på for å evaluere høyst omstridte data, som de Cyberonics har presentert for behandlingen. (These are precisely the sorts of experts the field relies on to help evaluate highly disputed data, like those Cyberonics has presented for the treatment.)

I en bitter debatt om fortolkningen av disse resultater, hvor mer enn 20 eksperter hos Food and Drug Administration motsatte seg godkjenning av utstyret for depresjon før de ble avvist av en seniorleder, ifølge en granskning utført av Senate Finance Committee investigation. (In a bitter debate over the interpretation of these results, more than 20 experts at the Food and Drug Administration opposed the approval of the device for depression before being overruled by a senior official, according to a Senate Finance Committee investigation)

Det var tvingende nødvendig med flere offentlige analyser. Men få om noen eksperter utenfra kjente dataene godt nok til å stille spørsmål. Og forskerne som kjente forskningen og dataene stod alle på firmaets lønningsliste.. (The device begged for some more public analysis. But few if any outside experts knew the data well enough to raise questions. And the scientists who did know the science and the data were all on the company’s payroll.)

"Dette er hva firmaer gjør, dvs. forsøker å få toppforskere til å akseptere store forskningsbevilgninger, eller penger for rådgivning, fordi de vet at disse navn får dem til å virke mer legitime,” sa dr. Daniel Carlat, sjefsredaktør for Carlat Psychiatry Report, et vel ansett månedlig nyhetsbrev, som i januar gjennomgikk bevisene for implantatet og ikke fant det spesielt overbevisende. (“This is what companies do, try to get top researchers to accept large grants for research, or to consult, because they know those names make them look more legit,” said Dr. Daniel Carlat, editor in chief of The Carlat Psychiatry Report, a well-regarded monthly newsletter, who in January reviewed the evidence for the implant and found it unconvincing.)

Bare det at navnene er er nevnt i tidsskiftet som gjennomgår behandlingen, uttalte han, “er en stor del av det den salgsteknikk som kommer etter at det gis godkjenning.” (The very presence of those names on papers reviewing the treatment, he said, “is a big part of the salesmanship that comes after getting approval.)

En av firmaets fremste konsulenter, Harold Sackeim, professor i psykiatri og radiologi ved Columbia, uttalte at dersom ikke utstyrprodusenter kunne hyre inn toppeksperter innen fagfeltet, ville nytt effektivt utstyr aldri bli godkjent. “Dette er ikke legemidler, hvor firmaene er mye større og har sine egne eksperter,” uttalte han. (One of the company’s primary consultants, Harold Sackeim, a professor of psychiatry and radiology at Columbia, said that if device makers could not hire the field’s top experts, effective new devices would never be approved. “This is not like pharmaceuticals, where the companies are much bigger and have their own experts,” he said.)

Han la til ar andre akademiske leger som gir råd til firmaet “er svært liten gruppe, hvor alle kjenner hverandre, og som gruppe har en relativt stor faglig tyngde.” (He added that he and other academic doctors advising the company “are a pretty small group, we all know each other, and the gestalt in the group carries a lot of weight.”)

Da Cyberonics bredere publiserte sine data — i Biological Psychiatry, tidsskriftet som er redigert av dr. Charney — var produktet allerede godkjent og leken avsluttet. Leger rundt omkring i landet diskuterer nå om implantatet skal brukes på kronisk deprimerte pasienter, som er antatt å være mer enn fire millioner. (By the time Cyberonics published its data widely — in Biological Psychiatry, the journal edited by Dr. Charney — the product was already approved and the game over. Doctors around the country are now discussing using the implant for chronically depressed patients, who are thought to number more than four million.)

Firmaet har fokusert på reklame, det har også dets konsulenter. Ved et møte i psykiatriforeningen (American Psychiatry Association) i mai, stod dr. Rush på Cyberonics stand, og fortalte om fordelene til terapien til nysgjerrige psykiatere. I en av flere presentasjoner av utstyret gjennomgikk leger dets bruk mot fedme, angst, og Alzheimers sykdom, formål som det ikke er godkjent for. (The company has focused on promotion, as have some of its consultants. At an American Psychiatry Association meeting in May, Dr. Rush sat in the Cyberonics booth, describing the benefits of the therapy to curious psychiatrists. In one of several presentations about the device, doctors reviewed its use for obesity, anxiety and Alzheimer’s disease, purposes for which it is not approved.)

Og i den nylige oversiktsartikkel som ble publisert uten full offentliggjøring av interessekonflikter var det ikke fokusert på hvorvidt utstyret virket på depresjon, eller for hvem. Det var en spekulativ artikkel om virkningsmekanisme — om hvordan det fungerte. (And the recent review article that appeared without full disclosure was not focused on whether the device worked for depression, or for whom. It was a speculative essay about its mechanism of action — about how it worked.)

En av de antatte styrkene til amerikansk forskning er at den er sentralisert og mangeartet: der er dusinvis av topp forskere som er konkurransedyktige og kritiske, som tvinger frem en høy standard. Men når mange av de ledende skikkelser spiller på samme lag — et All Star Team — så sikrer startoppstillingen i seg selv at man vinner, uten hensyn til forskningen. (One of the supposed strengths of American science is that it is decentralized and diverse: there are dozens of top researchers who are competitive and critical, enforcing a high standard. But when many or most of the leading figures are playing for the same team — an all-star team — that lineup itself may carry the day, regardless of the science.)

(Anm: Medisinske tidsskrifter og uavhengighet etc. (mintankesmie.no).)

- Tidsskriftsreadaktør trekker seg grunnet manglende offentliggjøring av interessekonflikter

Journal Editor Resigns After Failure To Disclose Conflict of Interest (Tidsskriftsreadaktør trekker seg grunnet manglende offentliggjøring av interessekonflikter)
kaisernetwork.org 28.8.2006
Charles Nemeroff has decided to resign as editor of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology after he co-authored a favorable article on a chest implant that treats depression and did not disclose his financial ties to Cyberonics, which manufactures the device, the Wall Street Journal reports. The article, published last month in Neuropsychopharmacology, said that the device -- which delivers mild electrical pulses to the vagus nerve in the neck -- is "a promising and well-tolerated intervention that is effective in a subset of patients with treatment-resistant depression." Nemeroff, chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University, and seven of the eight other authors of the article serve as consultants for Cyberonics, and one of the authors was an employee of the company. In an e-mail, the owner of Neuropsychopharmacology said that Nemeroff decided to resign, "in part, based on the recent adverse publicity to the journal." Neuropsychopharmacology has published a correction that disclosed the financial ties of the authors of the article to Cyberonics (Armstrong, Wall Street Journal, 8/26).

- FDA lover konfliktreform

FDA Pledges Conflict Reforms (FDA lover konflikt-reform)
latimes.com 25.7.2006
The agency says it will clarify rules on advisory panel members with ties to drug companies.

WASHINGTON — Responding to criticism that its expert advisory panels are packed with industry-friendly scientists, the Food and Drug Administration pledged Monday to clarify its conflict-of-interest rules and provide greater public disclosure.

But critics said it was not clear that the reforms would stop many doctors and researchers with such conflicts from serving on the panels, whose recommendations can determine the fate of drugs that may be worth millions of dollars in corporate profits but also may endanger consumers.

The FDA has about 50 advisory panels that are supposed to provide impartial technical advice on issues such as over-the-counter allergy medicines, silicone breast implants and chemotherapy drugs with toxic side effects. A study published this year found that 28% of panel members disclosed financial conflicts, but only 1% recused themselves.

The latest FDA announcement comes as the issue of conflicts of interest among the nation's scientific elite is being hotly debated.

Legislation pending in Congress would bar the FDA from employing outside experts with any financial ties to companies with a stake in a panel's recommendation — whether the companies sponsored the drug in question or manufactured a competing product. (...)

- Mørke skyer over psykiatrisk forskning i Toronto

Dark clouds over Toronto psychiatry research (Mørke skyer over psykiatrisk forskning i Toronto)
Nat Med. 2001 Jun;7(6):643
University of Toronto (UT) og tilsluttede sykehus er kommet i enda en tvist med hensyn til deres holdning til donatorer innen næringslivet versus deres atferd overfor ansatte. (The University of Toronto (UT) and its affiliated hospitals have become embroiled in another controversy regarding their attitude to corporate donors versus their behavior towards employees.)

Den britiske psykiater David Healy aksepterte en senior stilling ved Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) og Department of Psychiatry ved UT bare for å få tilbudet trukket noen måneder senere på grunnlag av en tale han holdt ved universitetet. Talen var høyst kritisk til den farmasøytiske industri. (British psychiatrist David Healy accepted a senior position at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and the Department of Psychiatry at UT only to have the offer withdrawn months later on the basis of a speech he made at the University. The speech was highly critical of the pharmaceutical industry.)

Healy, direktør ved North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine ved University of Wales i Storbritannia, er en produktiv forfatter og hans syn på neurologisk medisin er viden kjent. Han har fungert som medisinsk ekspert i flere rettssaker som involverer antidepressive legemidler. (Healy, the Director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Wales in the UK, is a prolific author and his views on neurological medicines are widely known. He has acted as a medical expert in several legal cases involving antidepressant drugs.)

Han sier han i en periode på 18 måneder ble oppfordet av lærerstaben ved CAMH til å slutte seg til gruppen som klinisk direktør for Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program og som professor ved Department of Psychiatry ved UT. Han aksepterte tilbudet formelt den 13. september 2000 og søkte immigrasjonspass for seg selv og sin familie. (He says he was courted by CAMH faculty over a period of 18 months to join the group as Clinical Director of the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program and as a Full Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at UT. He formally accepted the offer on 13 September, 2000 and proceeded to apply for an immigration visa for himself and his family.)

Den 30. november sist år, deltok Healy på et symposium ved UT og holdt et foredrag som han senere gjentok ved Cornell University, New York, og Centre for National Research in Health i Paris. Foredraget danner også grunnlaget for en kommende bok ved Harvard University Press. (On 30 November last year, Healy took part in a symposium at UT and presented a lecture that he subsequently repeated at Cornell University, New York, and at the Centre for National Research in Health in Paris. The talk also forms the synopsis of a forthcoming Harvard University Press book.)

Til tross for en evaluering som viste at Healys tale var rangert høyest for “innhold” som møtte tilhørerernes behov og mål - mer enn talere slik som Steven Hyman, direkør for US National Institute of Mental Health - ble Healys fremtidige sjefer forarget over talen. Den 8. desember, sendte sjefslege ved CAMH, David Goldbloom, en e-mail til Healy, hvor han kansellerer hans utnevnelse ved fakultetet. Goldbloom skrev, "...vi tror at ikke det er en god tilpasning mellom deg og rollen som leder for et akademisk program...Dette syn ble befestet i din nylige opptreden ved senteret med bakgrunn i et akademiske foredrag...." (...) (Despite an evaluation form showing that Healy's talk was rated highest for 'content that met the audience's needs and objectives'—above that of speakers such as Steven Hyman, director of the US National Institute of Mental Health—Healy's future bosses took offense to the speech. On 8 December, David Goldbloom, Physician-in-Chief at CAMH emailed Healy canceling his faculty appointment. Goldbloom wrote, "...we believe that it is not a good fit between you and the role as leader of an academic program...This view was solidified by your recent appearance at the Centre in the context of an academic lecture....")

Han gjentok sitt syn på antidepressive legemidler: "Jeg tror at Prozac og andre SSRI-er kan føre til selvmord. Disse legemidlene kan ha vært ansvarlig for 1 dødsfall hver dag Prozac har vært på markedet i Nord Amerika." Og han gikk videre med spørsmålet om hvorfor ikke forskning hadde blitt utført for å avgjøre hvorvidt legemidlet forårsaker eller ikke forårsaker selvmord. (He repeated his views on antidepressant drugs: "I happen to believe that Prozac and other SSRIs can lead to suicide. These drugs may have been responsible for 1 death for every day that Prozac has been on the market in North America." And he went on to question why no research has been carried out to determine whether the drug does or does not cause suicide.)

Mot slutten av foredraget, sa Healy at informasjonen fra human genome vil gi fremgang for produkter tilhørende "nesten utelukkende farmasøytiske selskaper. Dersom de er rådet på den måte de er i øyeblikket, vil denne viten, som er så demokratisk viktig, virke mot demokratiets interesser. (Towards the end of the lecture, Healy said that the information from the human genome will give rise to products belonging "almost exclusively to pharmaceutical corporations. If they are advised in the way that they are at present, this knowledge, which is so democratically important, will operate against the interests of democracy.)

Produsenten av Prozac, Eli Lilly, som på CAMH's web-side er bekreftet å være dets største sposor, har donert over 1 million kanadiske dollar (645 000 dollar). Selv om ingen antyder at Lilly spilte noen rolle i beslutningen om å sparke Healy, stiller noen spørsmål hvorvidt CAMH fakultetet var så bekymret over å fornærme donatorer at de ofret rekrutteringen. (The manufacturer of Prozac, Eli Lilly, is acknowledged on CAMH's website to be its largest sponsor, having donated over CAN$1 million (US$645,000). While no-one is suggesting that Lilly played any part in the decision to sack Healy, some are questioning whether CAMH faculty were sufficiently worried about offending donors that they sacrificed the recruitment.)

Saken har vekket interesse hos Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), en organisasjon som representerer 30 000 fakulteter i Canada. CAUT kjøper ikke CAMHs forklaring på kanselleringen av Healys ansettelse – eller kan se hvorfor en slik langdryg og detaljert hyrelsesprosess kan bli reversert etter et foredrag – og oppfordrer til en uavhengig undersøkelse av saken. "Vi er ganske rystet over det som synes å være en åpenbar krenkelse av akademisk frihet. (The case has caught the attention of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), an organization that represents 30,000 faculty across Canada. CAUT does not buy CAMH's explanation for canceling Healy's appointment - or see why such a lengthy and detailed hiring process can be reversed on one lecture - and is calling for an independent inquiry into the issue. "We are quite appalled at what appears to be a flagrant violation of academic freedom.)

Her er en institusjon - både CAMH og UT - urolig over å ha en frimodig kritiker av farmasøytisk industri," sier CAUTs administrerende direktør, Jim Turk. "Vi vil lansere vår egen granskning om nødvendig, som vi har gjort i Olivieri saken. Den rapporten skal komme ut neste måned." (se neste side). (Here's an institution - both CAMH and UT - that is uncomfortable having an outspoken critic of the pharmaceutical industry," says CAUT Executive Director, Jim Turk. "We will launch our own investigation if necessary, as we have had to do in the Olivieri case. That report is due out next month." (see overleaf).)

Turk uttalte til Nature Medicine, "Vi tror det er en meget svart sky over University of Toronto og dets tilsluttede utdanningssykehus. Vi sender ut et budskap om at et top notch universitet ikke er forberedt å tolerere meningsforskjell og mangfoldighet på synspunkt blant medisinske forskerer." (Turk told Nature Medicine, "We think there's a very dark cloud over the University of Toronto and its affiliated teaching hospitals. We're sending out a message that this top notch university isn't prepared to tolerate dissent and diversity of viewpoints and amongst medical researchers.)

Faculty Association ved UT har også levert et varsel om brudd på akademisk frihet og vil gå videre med en formell ankeprosedyre dersom universitetet ikke responderer innen 3 uker. I mellomtiden overveier Healy søksmål mot CAMH for kontraktsbrudd. (The Faculty Association at UT has also filed a notice of Breech of Academic Freedom and will proceed to a formal grievance procedure if the University does not respond in 3 weeks. Meanwhile, Healy is considering whether to file a legal suit against CAMH for breech of contract.)

Psychiatrist denied job sues U of T
Linked rozac to suicide”
nationalpost.com 25.09.2001
En fremtredende britisk psykiater har tatt ut et søksmål på 9,4 millioner dollar mot University of Toronto og et tilsluttet undervisningssykehus med påstander om at han ble nektet akademisk frihet da hans ansettelseskontrakt ble opphevet en uke etter at han holdt et foredrag hvor Prozac ble linket til selvmord. (...) (A prominent British psychiatrist has filed a $9.4-million lawsuit against the University of Toronto and an affiliated teaching hospital alleging he was denied academic freedom when his employment contract was revoked one week after he delivered a lecture linking the drug Prozac to suicide.)

Søksmålet, som vil være det første i Kanada som tester akademisk frihet, ber retten å opprette et nytt culpaansvar, eller sivilrett, som erkjenner en professors rett til å snakke uten fare for å bli sparket eller irettesatt. (...) (The lawsuit, which will be the first in Canada to test the issue of academic freedom, asks the court to establish a new tort, or civil law, recognizing a professor's right to speak out without fear of being fired or reprimanded.)

I søksmålet påstås det at universitetet og Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) brøt kontrakten når de opphevet dr. David Healys jobbtilbud om 250 000 dollar per år. Det påstås også at de æreskrenket ham i notater og artikler om hans omdiskuterte bemerkninger om antidepressive legemidler. (...) (The suit alleges the university and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) breached their contract when they rescinded Dr. David Healy's $250,000-a-year job offer. It also claims they libeled him in memos and articles about his controversial remarks about the anti-depressant drug.)

I de rettslige påstander, som ble oversendt Superior Court of Justice den 30. november sist år, påstås at dr Healy, som hadde akseptert et tilbud som klinisk direktør ved senteret og professor i psykiatri ved universitetet, på en konferanse ved CAMH fortalte at han trodde Prozac kunne forårsake at noen pasienter begikk selvmord. Hans advokat sa i går uttalelsen var basert på dr Healys forskning, så vel som studier fra andre leger. (...) (The statement of claim, filed in the Superior Court of Justice, states that on Nov. 30 last year, Dr. Healy, who had accepted an offer as clinical director at the centre and professor of psychiatry at the university, told a conference at CAMH that he believed Prozac could cause some patients to commit suicide. His lawyer said yesterday the statement was based on Dr. Healy's research, as well as studies by other doctors.)

Etter dr Healys foredrag, var dr David Goldbloom, sjefslege ved CAMH og professor i psykiatri ved universitietet med myndighet over ansettelse, "svært kritisk til innholdet [av foredraget] og virket å være personlig opphisset over det," påstås det i søksmålet. (...) (After Dr. Healy's lecture, Dr. David Goldbloom, physician-in-chief at CAMH and professor of psychiatry at the university with authority over hiring, "was very critical of the content [of the lecture] and appeared to have been personally angered by it," the suit alleges.)

Det forteller at Eli Lilly, som produserer Prozac, var blitt en viktig donator for undervisningssykehuset, bidragsytende med minst 1,5 millioner dollar. Det sier også representanter for CAMH møtte firmaet den dagen konferansen ble avholdt. (...) (It states that Eli Lilly, which manufactures Prozac, had been a major donor to the teaching hospital, contributing at least $1.5-million. It also says that on the day of the conference, representatives of CAMH met with the company.)

I den rettslige påstanden er det anført at, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, en psykiater som er blitt en stor aksjeeier i Eli Lilly og andre farmasøytiske firmaer, den 30. november eller der omkring, og som var tilstede på konferansen, snakket med dr. Goldbloom om dr Healys kommentarer om legemidlet. (...) (The statement of claim alleges that on or around Nov. 30, Dr. Charles Nemeroff, a psychiatrist who has been a major shareholder in Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies, and who was at the conference, spoke to Dr. Goldbloom about Dr. Healy's comments about the drug.)

Dr Healy mottok ifølge søksmålet et brev fra dr Goldbloom den 7. desember hvor det var uttalt at tilbudet var trukket. Det siterer brevet som sier: "I alt vesentlig, tror vi at det ikke er en god tilpasning mellom deg og rollen som leder for et akademisk program... Dette synspunktet ble befestet ved din nylige opptreden ved senteret i sammenheng med et akademisk foredrag." (...) (Dr. Healy received a letter on Dec. 7 from Dr. Goldbloom stating the offer was withdrawn, the lawsuit states. It cites the letter as saying: "Essentially, we believe that it is not a good fit between you and the role as leader of an academic program ... This view was solidified by your recent appearance at the centre in the context of an academic lecture.)

Dr Healy, som arbeider ved University of Wales, bekrefter at det kan bli reist kritikk om størrelsen på den søkte skadeserstatningen, men sier at dersom kravet går igjennom, vil den ”punitive” (straffende) skadeerstatningen bli brukt som båndlagte midler for å etablere et Kanadisk fond for akademisk frihet. (Dr. Healy, who works at the University of Wales, acknowledged there might be criticism about the amount of damages sought, but said if the claim is successful, punitive damages will be used to establish a Canadian trust fund for academic freedom.)

Undisclosed Financial Ties Prompt Reproval of Doctor
nytimes.com 03.08.2003
Two scientists are raising concerns about an article in a medical journal that described experimental treatments for depression because an author did not disclose his significant financial ties to three therapies that he mentioned favorably. (Two scientists are raising concerns about an article in a medical journal that described experimental treatments for depression because an author did not disclose his significant financial ties to three therapies that he mentioned favorably.)

The executive editor of the journal said it had not required disclosure of the potential conflicts, but was considering changing its policy in light of the criticism. The ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. (The executive editor of the journal said it had not required disclosure of the potential conflicts, but was considering changing its policy in light of the criticism. The ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years.)

The lead author of the article, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, chairman of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, said he would have reported the conflicts of interest, which include owning the patent on a treatment he mentioned, if the journal had asked him to. (The lead author of the article, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, chairman of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, said he would have reported the conflicts of interest, which include owning the patent on a treatment he mentioned, if the journal had asked him to.)

I have always been totally compliant, probably gone overboard, with disclosure," Dr. Nemeroff said. "If there is a fault here, it is with the journal's policy." ("I have always been totally compliant, probably gone overboard, with disclosure," Dr. Nemeroff said. "If there is a fault here, it is with the journal's policy.")

The doctors who raised concerns, Robert T. Rubin and Bernard J. Carroll, said they faulted the policy of the journal, Nature Neuroscience, and Dr. Nemeroff for not disclosing the information anyway. (The doctors who raised concerns, Robert T. Rubin and Bernard J. Carroll, said they faulted the policy of the journal, Nature Neuroscience, and Dr. Nemeroff for not disclosing the information anyway.)

"The accepted ethic across all science now is that you disclose all real and potential conflict of interests," Dr. Rubin, director of the Center for Neurosciences Research at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, said. (...) ("The accepted ethic across all science now is that you disclose all real and potential conflict of interests," Dr. Rubin, director of the Center for Neurosciences Research at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, said.” (...)

Dr. Jennings said editors at the Nature journals were considering changing their policy. (...) (Dr. Jennings said editors at the Nature journals were considering changing their policy.)

Dr. Nemeroff also did not disclose that he was a significant shareholder in Corcept Therapeutics, a company in Menlo Park, Calif., that is trying to develop mifepristone, a drug now approved to induce abortions, into a treatment for psychotic depression. In the article, he wrote that there had been "impressive studies" with mifepristone, indicating that it "is very effective in the treatment of psychotic depression. (...) (Dr. Nemeroff also did not disclose that he was a significant shareholder in Corcept Therapeutics, a company in Menlo Park, Calif., that is trying to develop mifepristone, a drug now approved to induce abortions, into a treatment for psychotic depression. In the article, he wrote that there had been "impressive studies" with mifepristone, indicating that it "is very effective in the treatment of psychotic depression." (...)

Dr. Nemeroff also did not disclose any of his ties to Cypress Bioscience of San Diego, whose sole product is milnacipran, a drug being developed to treat fibromyalgia, a chronic pain disorder. Dr. Nemeroff noted in his article that drugs that work in a similar way to milnacipran have been shown to be more effective than some other antidepressants. (...) (Dr. Nemeroff also did not disclose any of his ties to Cypress Bioscience of San Diego, whose sole product is milnacipran, a drug being developed to treat fibromyalgia, a chronic pain disorder. Dr. Nemeroff noted in his article that drugs that work in a similar way to milnacipran have been shown to be more effective than some other antidepressants.)

Dr. Nemeroff contended that Dr. Carroll was "stirring up things" because of past differences between the two men.”… (Dr. Nemeroff contended that Dr. Carroll was "stirring up things" because of past differences between the two men.”… (“Dr. Nemeroff contended that Dr. Carroll was "stirring up things" because of past differences between the two men.” (...))

Dr. Carroll said the conflicts were so large that they would bother many researchers.”… (Dr. Carroll said the conflicts were so large that they would bother many researchers.)

Dr. Carroll said he was a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and disclosed those ties when necessary. (Dr. Carroll said he was a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and disclosed those ties when necessary.)

"I don't mind if there is a financial connection, as long as it is disclosed," he said. "When financial conflicts are present, there is the real possibility of bias." ("I don't mind if there is a financial connection, as long as it is disclosed," he said. "When financial conflicts are present, there is the real possibility of bias.")

- De fortalte at legemidlet var det beste siden ferdig oppskjert brød. Jeg tror ikke det er det

'It said the drug was the best thing since sliced bread. I don't think it is' (De fortalte at legemidlet var det beste siden ferdig oppskjert brød. Jeg tror ikke det er det)
Guardian 07.02.2002
David Healy, leder for North Wales department of psychological medicine, ble kontaktet av et kommunikasjonsbyrå som arbeidet for Pierre Fabre, produsenten av antidepressiva milnacipran. (David Healy, director of the north Wales department of psychological medicine, was approached by a communications agency working for Pierre Fabre, makers of the antidepressant milnacipran.)

De inviterte ham til å foredra på et av firmaets sponsede symposium for et nytt legemiddel på møtet i september 1999 ved European College of Neuropsychopharmacology og gjøre et arbeide på bakgrunn av foredraget. Arbeidet skulle publiseres i et supplement til International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, som er er redigert av Siegfried Kasper og David Baldwin. (They invited him to speak at a company-sponsored symposium on the new drug at a European College of Neuropsychopharmacology meeting in September 1999 and produce a paper from his talk. The papers were to be published in a supplement to the International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, which is edited by Siegfried Kasper and David Baldwin.)

"For å redusere din arbeidsbealstning til et minimum har vi latt vår ”ghostwriters” produsere et første utkast basert på ditt publiserte arbeide," het det i e-posten fra firmaet. ("In order to reduce your workload to a minimum we have had our ghostwriters produce a first draft based on your published work," the email from the company said.)

Utkastet var basert på dr Healys tidligere arbeid og inkluderte referanser til hans arbeider, men han foretrakk å skrive sin egen artikkel og forela denne for byrået. (The draft was based on Dr Healy's past work and included references to his papers, but he preferred to write his own article and submitted that to the agency.)

Byråets respons, en måned senere, var at det ville være synd å endre dr Healys egen artikkel, men at de trengte "å innta ett eller to punkter som ikke er fremhevet i manusskriptet.” De sa de hadde besluttet å publisere dr Healys artikkel separat i supplementet. (The agency's response, a month later, was that it would be a pity to alter Dr Healy's own article but that they needed "to bring across one or two points that are not accentuated in your manuscript." They had decided, they said, to publish Dr Healy's article separately in the supplement.)

Men den originale, spøkelsesskrevne artikkelen som inneholdt hva de beskrev som "de viktigste kommersielle punkter" måtte også være der. "Siegfried Kasper har velvillig samtykket å forfatte dette," sa de. Navnet til professor Kasper ved University of Vienna, redaktør for tidsskriftet, opptrådte på behørig vis i den uendrede publiserte artikkel, komplett med de originale referanser til dr Healys arbeid. Professor Kasper fortalte Guardian at de var tilfreds med innholdet i artikkelen. (But the original, ghostwritten article which contained what they described as "the main commercially important points" was to be there too. "Siegfried Kasper has kindly agreed to author this one," they said. The name of Professor Kasper of the University of Vienna, editor of the journal, duly appeared on the unaltered, published article, complete with the original references to Dr Healy's work. Professor Kasper told the Guardian that he was happy with the content of the article.)

En annen tilnærming til dr Healy kom fra en senior akademiker ved Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ved University of Toronto. Dr Healy ble invitert til å foredra på et symposium og forfatte et arbeid om et antidepressiva kalt venlafaxine, produsert av Wyeth. (A second approach was made to Dr Healy by a senior academic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health at the University of Toronto. Dr Healy was invited to speak at a symposium and author a paper on an antidepressant called venlafaxine, made by Wyeth.)

I de senere år, er det innen psykiatrien erkjent at mens "vidundermidler" liksom Prozac tar noe av depresjonen, handler det ikke om helbredelse. Wyeth påstår at venlafaxine gjør det. (In the past few years, it has been recognised within psychiatry that while "wonder drugs" like Prozac take the edge off depression, they do not bring about a cure. Wyeth claims that venlafaxine can.)

Den 1. januar 2001, fikk dr Healy og hans kollega Richard Tranter en e-post inneholdende "det første utkastet av din artikkel skrevet av en medisinsk forfatter i et byrå som forbereder et supplement som ville være en følge av Wyeths symposium. De ble invitert til å "føle seg fri til å redigere det på den måte de måtte velge." (On January 1 2001, Dr Healy and his colleague Richard Tranter were sent an email containing "the first draft of your article by a medical writer from an agency which was organising the supplement which would follow Wyeth's symposium. They were invited to "feel free to edit it in any way you choose.")

Dr. Healy og dr. Tranter gjorde noen endringer, hvor de pekte på at studier av et liknende legemiddel kalt mirtazapine ikke støttet det budskapet Wyeth ønsket å formidle og at andre studier viste at antidepressiva kunne gjøre noen mennesker verre, enda til suicidal. (Dr Healy and Dr Tranter made some changes, pointing out that studies of a similar drug called mirtazapine did not support the message Wyeth wanted to give and that other studies showed that antidepressants could make some people worse, even suicidal.)

I juni, da et ferdige manuskriptet kom i posten, var det, sier dr Healy, "signifikant endret". Og en setning hadde blitt tilføyd om at venlafaxine "kan medføre full bedring hos et større antall av pasienter". Dr Healy tok sterkt avstand fra denne konstateringen. (In June, when the finished manuscript arrived in the post, it had been, says Dr Healy, "significantly altered". And a sentence had been added, saying that venlafaxine "may induce full remission in a greater number of patients". Dr Healy took strong exception to this statement.)

"Den siste setningen sa at Wyeths legemiddel var det beste siden ferdigskåret brød," sa dr Healy. "Jeg ville aldri ha sagt det fordi jeg ikke tror det er det." ("That last sentence said that Wyeth's drug was the best thing since sliced bread," said Dr Healy. "I would never have said that because I don't think it is.")

Han fant at denne pro-Wyeth linjen var satt inn av senior akademikeren i Toronto som hadde hjulpet med å arrangere symposiet for Wyeth. Dr Healy fjernet sitt navn fra artikkelen. (He found that the pro-Wyeth line had been inserted by the senior academic in Toronto who had helped set up the symposium for Wyeth. Dr Healy removed his name from the article.)

- Lege saksøker universitet for brudd på akademisk frihet

Doctor sues university for breach of academic freedom (Lege saksøker universitet for brudd på akademisk frihet)
BMJ 2001;323:770
Under et forberedende besøk i november 2000, foreleste han ved senteret, hvor han sa at selektive serotonin reopptakshemmere slik som fluoxetine (Prozac) kunne føre til selvmordstanker og at det mulig er overforskrevet. To uker senere ble han fortalt at han ikke lenger var ønsket. (...) (During a preliminary visit in November 2000, he gave a lecture at the centre in which he said that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as fluoxetine (Prozac) could lead to suicidal thoughts and were probably being overprescribed. Two weeks later he was told he was no longer wanted.)

- Bitter pille

Bitter pill
Guardian 21.05.2002
David Healys åpne kritikk av Prozac førte ham til amerikansk rett - og brakte forholdet mellom akademiske institusjoner og farmasøytiske firmaer fram i rampelysets senter. Det tok nesten 17 måneder, og inngripen fra en gruppe Nobel prisvinnere, men til slutt ble en kraftig internasjonal krangel over akademsik frihet og farmasøytiske firmaers tykke lommebøker, utkjempet mellom psykiater David Healy og University of Toronto, forliket, utenfor rettssalen. Støvet vil det imidlertid ta lenger tid før legger seg. (...) (David Healy's open criticism of Prozac took him to a US court - and brought the relationship between academic institutions and the pharmaceutical companies centre stage. It took nearly 17 months, and the intervention of a batch of Nobel prizewinners, but at last a major international bust-up over academic freedom and the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, fought out between psychiatrist David Healy and the University of Toronto, has been settled, out of court. The dust, however, will take longer to disperse.)

Med støtten fra CAUT, reiste dr Healy en rettslig sak mot universitetet. Saken fikk en høy profil og en lang liste respekterte forskere fra hele verden, blant annet Nobel prisvinnere, som signerte en protest som forsvar for akademisk frihet. Den 29. april ble det et annosert et forlik som av Vic Catano, president for CAUT ble betegnet som "en fullstendig oppreisning for Dr Healy". Universitetet uttalte at "det fremhever dets støtte til frie ytringer om kritiske synspunkter og bekrefter dr Healys stipendium ved å bekrefte at de vil utnevne ham som gjesteprofessor ved fakultetet for medisin."… (With the backing of CAUT, Dr Healy began a legal action against the university. The case became high profile and a long list of respected scientists from all over the world, including Nobel prizewinners, signed a petition in defence of academic freedom. On April 29 a settlement was announced which was described as "a complete vindication for Dr Healy" by Vic Catano, president of CAUT. The University stated that "it underscores its support for free expression of critical views and acknowledges Dr Healy's scholarship by confirming it will be appointing him as a visiting professor in the faculty of medicine.)

Healy-saken har synliggjort de uklare grensene mellom akademiske institusjoner, som har lite penger, og en industri som har bunnløse lommebøker – nettopp innen et område som psykiatri, hvor legemidler er blitt enormt viktig. Der er et presserende behov for mer åpenhet, men interessene er blitt svært høye. (The Healy case has shown up the blurring of the boundaries between academic institutions, which are short of money, and an industry that has a bottomless wallet - certainly in an area like psychiatry, where drugs have become hugely important. There is an urgent need for more openness, but the stakes have become very high.)

- Pris til Guardian-journalist

Award for Guardian writer (Pris til Guardian-journalist)
Guardian 22.05. 2002
Sarah Boseley, Guardians helseredaktør, fikk i går “Mind Journalist of the Year Award” for hennes "ypperlige undersøkende journalistikk" for granskningen av psykiatrisk industri. De tre dommere, som alle er tidligere vinnere, valgte henne enstemmig fra en liste med 10 utvalgte. "Sarah Boseley's eksklusive undersøkelse brakte bekymring om hvordan risiko innen psykiatrisk vitenskap blir kompromitert av store offentlige pengebeløp fra farmasøytiske firmaer og kastet også lys over en uhyggelig side ved Prozac-relaterte legemidler," sa dommer Adam James ved en seremoni i London hvor Melvyn Bragg, president for ”mental health charity Mind”, var vert." (Sarah Boseley, the Guardian's health editor, won the Mind Journalist of the Year Award yesterday for her "excellent investigative journalism" probing the psychiatric drug industry. The three judges, who are all former winners, unanimously chose her from a shortlist of 10. "Sarah Boseley's investigations exclusively brought concerns about how psychiatric science risks being compromised by the big bucks of pharmaceutical firms into the public domain and also highlighted a sinister side to Prozac-related drugs," said judge Adam James at a London ceremony hosted by Melvyn Bragg, president of the mental health charity Mind.)

Sarahs rapport om begivenhetene rundt den britiske psykiater David Healys avgang fra en høyprofilert klinisk stilling i Kanada, etter at han ga en tale hvor han ga en oversikt over forskning om hvordan Prozac kan føre til at noen begår selvmord, var så sterk at den tok pusten fra en - undersøkende journalistikk på sitt beste. (...) (Sarah's report on the events surrounding British psychiatrist David Healy's withdrawal of a high-profile clinical post in Canada, after he gave a speech outlining research on how Prozac may lead some to suicide, was breathtakingly powerful - investigative journalism at its best.)

- Er akademisk medisin til salgs?

Is Academic Medicine for Sale? (Er akademisk medisin til salgs?)
Editorial (Lederartikkel)
N Eng J Med 2000;342:1516-8
I 1984 ble Tidsskriftet det første av de større medisinske tidsskrifter til å kreve at forfattere av originale forskningsartikler opplyser om enhver finansiell tilknytning til firmaer som tilvirker de produkter som er omtalt i de arbeider som blir forelagt oss. (1) Vi ble oppmerksom på at slike bånd var blitt forholdsvis vanlig, og vi tenkte det var fornuftig å avsløre dem for leserne. Selv om vi tidlig brakte dette spørsmålet på bane, kunne ingen på dette tidspunktet forutse akkurat hvor allestedsnærværende og i vilket mangfold slike finansielle forbindelser ville bli. Artikkelen av Keller et al. (2) i denne utgaven av Tidsskriftet er et slående eksempel. Forfatterens tilknytninger til firmaene som produserer antidepressive legemidler er så omfattende at det ville ha tatt for mye plass å legge dem frem i sin helhet i Tidsskriftet. Vi besluttet rett og slett å sammenfatte dem og legge detaljene ut på vår web-side. (...) (In 1984 the Journal became the first of the major medical journals to require authors of original research articles to disclose any financial ties with companies that make products discussed in papers submitted to us. (1) We were aware that such ties were becoming fairly common, and we thought it reasonable to disclose them to readers. Although we came to this issue early, no one could have foreseen at the time just how ubiquitous and manifold such financial associations would become. The article by Keller et al. (2) in this issue of the Journal provides a striking example. The authors' ties with companies that make antidepressant drugs were so extensive that it would have used too much space to disclose them fully in the Journal. We decided merely to summarize them and to provide the details on our Web site.)

Når det gjelder Martin B. Keller, førsteforfatter for nevnte artikkel (A comparison of nefazodone, the cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy, and their combination for the treatment of chronic depression. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1462-70), heter det på NEJMs hjemmeside (http://www.nejm.org/ (2000)) at dr. Keller har vært konsulent for eller mottatt honorarer fra bl.a. Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Forest Laboratories/Parke-Davis, Wyeth - Ayerst, Merck, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Organon, og Pharmacia – Upjohn, og at han har mottatt forskningsmidler fra bl.a. Wyeth - Ayerst, SmithKline Beecham, Upjohn, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Forest Laboratories, Zeneca, og Organon, at han har sittet i rådgivende styre for bl.a. Wyeth - Ayerst, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories/Parke-Davis, Organon, SmithKline Beecham, Merck, Janssen, Mitsubishi Pharmaceuticals, Zeneca, Scirex, and Otsuka.

Listen over interaksjoner for de angjeldende forfattere er så omfattende at de opptar et par sider på den NEJMs hjemmeside.

Det heter i nevnte NEJM-lederartikkel bl.a. også, sitat:

“Men da vi snakket med psykiatriske forskere om å skrive en lederartikkel om behandling med antidepressiva, fant vi svært få som ikke hadde finansielle bånd til de legemiddelfirmaer som produserer antidepressiva. (...) (But as we spoke with research psychiatrists about writing an editorial on the treatment of depression, we found very few who did not have financial ties to drug companies that make antidepressants.)

Heldigvis tilfredsstilte dr. Jan Scott, som er særdeles godt kvalifisert til å skrive lederen, (4) våre standarder med hensyn til interessekonflikter. Problemet er ikke på noen måte unikt for psykiatrien. Vi støter stadig på liknende vanskeligheter når det gjelder å finne forfattere til lederartikkler innen andre spesialiteter, spesielt de som involverer storforbruk av legemidler og utstyr. (...) (Fortunately, Dr. Jan Scott, who is eminently qualified to write the editorial, (4) met our standards with respect to conflicts of interest. The problem is by no means unique to psychiatry. We routinely encounter similar difficulties in finding editorialists in other specialties, particularly those that involve the heavy use of expensive drugs and devices.)

Vi tror ikke det å opplyse om denne type relasjoner er nok til å ivareta problemet med mulig bias. (...) (We do not believe disclosure is enough to deal with the problem of possible bias.)

(Anm: bias [baies] -en, - skjevhet i vitenskapelig undersøkelse el. resultat pga. mangelfull systematikk i innsamlingen av data. Etym.: eng., fr. biais helning, tendens. Kilde: ordnett.no.)

(Anm: bias; (...) valg og vurderinger som på systematisk måte avviker fra det som er faktisk korrekt. Kilde: Store norske leksikon.)

"...transparent system of monitoring potential financial conflicts of interests..."

AAMC Supports Strong Oversight of Federal Conflict of Interest Regulations for NIH-Funded Research
aamc.org 18.1.2008
Washington, D.C., January 18, 2008—AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges) President and Chief Executive Officer Darrell G. Kirch, M.D., issued the following statement today, in response to the report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General which calls on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to strengthen its oversight of federal conflict of interest regulations that apply to grantee institutions:

"The Inspector General's report is an important reminder that a robust, credible, transparent system of monitoring potential financial conflicts of interests in federally-funded research is critical to protecting patients' interests and scientific integrity and maintaining the public's trust. The AAMC and its members support strong and effective implementation of the federal conflict of interest regulations that apply to research funded by NIH and other Public Health Service agencies. (...)

Diverse artikler

Emory will punish psychiatrist Nemeroff (Emory vil straffe psykiater Nemeroff)
ajc.com 23.12.2008
Chairmanship taken away, outside income to be vetted

Emory University on Monday permanently stripped Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of his department chairmanship and placed severe restrictions on the internationally known psychiatrist’s extracurricular activities.

Emory’s announcement followed an internal investigation into $800,000 in payments made to Nemeroff by the global pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline between January 2000 and January 2006. Nemeroff received the payments for more than 250 speeches he made to other medical professionals. (...)

Kendt overlæge taget i million-fusk
bt.dk 18.8.2006
Den internationalt anerkendte forsker i nikotinskader, overlæge Inger Asmussen, er blevet taget i fusk med forskermidler i den helt store skala.

Det skriver B.T. i dag. Hun skal nu betale i alt 1,5 mio. kr. tilbage til det norske sundhedsvæsen. (...)

Lege må betale tilbake 900.000
nettavisen.no 14.8.2006
Den kvinnelige legen satte 1,3 millioner kroner av sykehusets penger på egen konto.

Nå har hun tapt på alle punkter i Fjordane tingrett, og må betale tilbake 900.000 kroner, skriver Firda.no.

Kvinnen brukte sykehusets ressurser uten at det ble opplyst at flere firmaer betalte betydelige summer inn til hennes personlige konto, påpekte Helse Førdes advokat, Stig Gunleiksrud, i retten. (...)

Det var i perioden 1999 til 2005 at den kvinnelige hjertespesialisten gjennomførte flere forskningsprosjekter for legemiddelfirmaer. (...)

Legemiddelfirmaene har uttalt at de trodde de hadde samarbeidsavtale med Helse Førde hvor legen var ansatt, og ikke med legen personlig.

Kvinnen ble avskjediget da forholdet ble avslørt. I tillegg til de 900.000 som må tilbakebetales, må hun ut med 800.000 kroner i saksomkostninger. Det er uklart om hun vil anke. (...)