Ghostbusters at POGO

Revised on December 22, 2010. Additional information.

The New York Times ran a story yesterday (and subsequent correction) about a POGO investigation which uncovered millions of dollars that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been giving to medical researchers who use ghostwriters funded by the pharmaceutical industry. 

POGO sent the NIH four examples of this behavior, but the Times decided to focus on the case of Drs. Charles Nemeroff and Alan Schatzberg, who signed their names to a handbook for doctors that had entire portions written by the marketing firm Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI). The whole thing was paid for by pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which was using STI to push sales of the antidepressant Paxil.

When the book was published, the authors acknowledged the “editorial assistance” of the marketing firm, and thanked GSK for an “unrestricted educational grant.” 

Documents acquired by POGO provide a dramatically different narrative.

In a letter to Dr. Nemeroff, an STI employee laid out a timeline for completing the book. This timeline states that GSK would receive drafts of the handbook and page proofs for final approval. POGO also released a draft of the text written by STI, which mirrors language in the published handbook.

The Times reported that Nemeroff and Schatzberg received a 15% royalty on the $120,000 in sales. The Times also reported that Nemeroff and Schatzberg deny what the evidence strongly suggests.

Dr. Schatzberg commented that the timeline from STI was “a theoretical proposal that bears little, if any relationship to what actually happened.”

For his part Dr. Nemeroff had the audacity to praise his corporate-funded activism. “Remarkably, the book remains quite accurate and relevant to clinical practice today,” he said.

The Stanford Daily reported on the scandal today, and both Nemeroff and Schatzberg “did not return requests for comment.” However, a spokesperson from Stanford said that both Schatzberg and the textbook’s publisher “strongly deny that the manuscript was ghostwritten.”

Deny if you will, but a critic of the practice, writing in The Atlantic, called ghostwriting what we all know it to be: plagiarism. 

Neither Nemeroff nor Schatzberg is a stranger to media scrutiny. In 2006, Dr. Schatzberg was the focus of a San Jose Mercury News investigation regarding his research into a drug to treat depression. Schatzberg was leading the study and had millions invested in the company which was trying to get the drug approved. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Nemeroff has been in the press so many times for questionable behavior that recounting all his problems would require a book-length review, with a dozen ghostwriters working round the clock for months. For a brief primer, begin with this article in the Wall Street Journal pointing out that Nemeroff published an article promoting a medical device but “forgot” to note that he was being paid by the company. Another article here in the New York Times reported that Nemeroff “forgot” to disclose millions he had received from drug companies. You can read some documents here on the blog Pharmalot by searching for “Nemeroff.” Finally, the Senate Finance Committee released dozens of internal documents from Emory University regarding Nemeroff. You can read them here. 

The history of these two can make you numb with outrage, but Danny Carlat has done his best to find some humor in the whole event.

We’ll have more on ghostwriting and what POGO uncovered in coming days. Stay tuned.

-- Paul Thacker

Comments

[Research user]

What is wrong with ghostwriting? Many researchers aren't good writers, many take too long to write up reports (it's that analytical mind and drive for precision). As long as they are doing the research and overseeing the writing, I think it's a win win situation for the researcher and reader - oh, it would save grant money too since reports would be produced more efficiently.

[Pharma Rep]

This is very exciting. I think it is ironic that the American Psychiatric Association put out a release condemning ghostwriting. Weren't they one of the three hired "ghostwriters" behind GSK's phantom group "Coalition for Social Anxiety Disorders" at the height of Paxil promotion?" The APA should keep very quiet about the whole thing and just throw Nemeroff and Schatzberg under the bus and save their own ghost-costumed behinds.

GSK's whole Paxil promotion line is nothing but a masquerade party. Ghostwritten articles, ghostwritten books, and ghostwritten groups...the scarier part is that "doctors" actually aided in this scheme. Doctors that get taxpayer money to put out "unbiased" research. It is a shame.

[Mickey]

“Remarkably, the book remains quite accurate and relevant to clinical practice today,” [Nemeroff] said.

Perhaps he should send authors Diane Coniglio and Sally Laden some flowers.

Thanks for aiming your letter at the NIH/NIMH. The time for expose is over. It's time for action. An inordinant fraction of the money earmarked for medical research has been siphoned off by these guys in the corporate wars for market shares. These pseudoscientists have tainted medical academia and particularly academic Psychiatry long enough. Worst of all, they've actively corrupted medical practice.

[Sarah Palin]

Truly chair and co-chair of the Corrupt Bastards Club