Bill 'best way to ensure' transparency of possible conflicts of interest, editorial states

A report published last week that found three researchers from Harvard Medical School were "vastly underreporting their income from drug companies" offers "striking proof that today's requirements for reporting payments from industry -- essentially an honor system in which researchers are supposed to reveal their outside income to their institutions" -- must "be strengthened," a New York Times editorial states.

According to the editorial, the results of the report -- published in the Congressional Record by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- are "particularly troublesome" because studies conducted by the three researchers have "helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs to treat children."

The editorial states, "Although supporters praise the most prominent of the trio" -- Joseph Biederman -- "as a visionary who has saved many lives, critics complain that the Harvard studies have been too small and loosely designed to provide conclusive results," adding, "Critics say they also were subject to biased interpretation through use of a subjective rating scale." The editorial states, "At this point, it is not clear whether the researchers inadvertently failed to comply with reporting rules or consciously sought to hide their sizable incomes from drug companies." However, "it is clear that relying on researchers to report their outside incomes and on universities and hospitals to police the disclosures won't suffice," according to the editorial.

A bill introduced by Grassley and Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) that would "require drug and device makers to report annually any payments to doctors that exceed $500 a year ... is the best way to ensure that conflicts of interest are transparent to all," the editorial concludes (New York Times, 6/10).