Conflicting biases.(LETTERS)(Letter to the editor)

I read with interest the opposing views of Dr. Steven Miles and Jeff Stier, Esq., on whether pharmaceutical funding biases research ("Does Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Bias Research?" April 2009, p. 9).

Dr. Miles cited the medical and legal literature regarding specific cases, whereas Mr. Stier made generalizations with no reference to specific facts. There is nothing "under the hood," to use Mr. Stier's expression.

I am not sure why CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY NEWS asked an attorney working for an industry-sponsored organization to rebut Dr. Miles's argument. Surely there are qualified psychiatrists who could more articulately offer counter arguments?

The disclosure statement that Mr. Stier has no relevant conflicts of interest is false. The American Council on Science and Health receives a huge share of its funding from industry, including the pharmaceutical industry. Perhaps Mr. Stier would like to speculate as to what Dr. Miles' conflicts are.

Michael S. Diamond, M.D. Chevy Chase, Md.

Mr. Stier replies:

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) makes no secret that we are funded by a very diverse group of individuals, foundations, and corporations. Acceptance of no-strings-attached corporate support is common among nonprofits, including, I would speculate, the University of Minnesota--which pays Dr. Miles.

On the contrary to Dr. Diamond's allegations, we do not receive a "huge" source of funding from industry. In fact, our fastest-growing sector of support is from individuals across the country who believe that the Ralph Nader-inspired approach to consumer activism does not represent their point of view. To allege that such views must be funded primarily by industry suggests a naive view about the diversity of opinions in this country. Cynical and unfounded accusations tend to be all that are left when rational arguments fail.

ACSH accepts no-strings-attached support from a variety of sources and puts those funds to use effectively to promote public health. That is why we have the top rating from Charity Navigator and receive high marks (18 of 20) from the Better Business Bureau's Give.org.

Dr. Miles replies:

1 appreciate Dr. Diamond's comment. In fairness to his allegation that Mr. Stier's argument consisted of "generalizations without specific facts," I would note that there are no facts that Mr. Stier could have marshaled to counter the well-established finding that industry-sponsored research is much more likely than financially independent research to reach and or support a finding about a product's efficacy--minimize its risks.

1 am willing to debate this matter again with any expert at any time in a non-industry-sponsored setting.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates