Docs reject Harvard jobs because of conflict of interest policy?

Well, that’harvard meds  what Dr. Peter Slavin, president of Massachusetts General Hospital, told STAT news in a story about Harvard’s revised conflict of interest policy:

Slavin said the change may help with a recruitment problem: “Some faculty don’t come because they perceive that Harvard Medical School has rules that are much too restrictive.”

Or they leave, according to Gretchen Brodnicki, dean for faculty and research integrity.

 Brodnicki said she has heard anecdotes of faculty leaving, or being unable to conduct specific studies, because of the rule, though she said the impact is hard to measure.

Here’s the new rule:

First, the school is raising the thresholds: Faculty will have to receive at least $25,000 in income (up from $10,000), or hold $50,000 in equity of a publicly traded company (up from $30,000) to trigger the prohibition on clinical research. Faculty still cannot hold any equity in a privately held company if they want to do clinical trials on that company’s product.

Second, the school will now allow faculty to petition for an exemption if they’re over those thresholds and still want to do the research.



BHN exclusive: Relman on ACRE conflict of interest meeting

RelmanDuring his 14 years as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine – most of the 80’s and some change – Dr. Arnold S. Relman often commented on the influence of money on medicine. He still doesn’t like it. BHN noticed him at last week’s meeting of Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) “an organization of medical professionals dedicated to the advancement of patient care through productive collaboration with industry and its counterparts.”  (See previous blog post about the meeting.)

So, we asked for his thoughts about the presentations. Here they are:

“I sat through the whole program, which was a sustained diatribe against conflict-of-interest regulations rather than a scholarly, balanced discussion of the issues. There was practically no time for audience questions or comments, but instead an almost unrelenting barrage of ideological and anecdotal criticism of what was said to be a misguided “belief system” that worries excessively over relations between industry and the medical profession. There was an occasional informative and reasonable contribution, but for the most part sarcasm and anger prevailed.
The heavily industry-related audience loved the performance, but the obviously biased, self-serving, and often grossly flawed presentations should have embarrassed the organizers. Although neither Harvard Medical School nor the Brigham & Women’s Hospital sponsored or formally endorsed the meeting, the HMS Dean did give the initial welcoming remarks, and the Hospital offerred its facilities for the event. One can only hope that they are now having second thoughts.”
here are some other reports on ACRE and the meeting: Policy and Medicine, Postscript and The Carlat Psychiatry Blog