Medical School Fails To Turn In Reports

Harvard Medical School received a glaring red F yesterday from medical students who graded conflict-of-interest policies at medical schools nationwide; but it turns out that Harvard just forgot to turn in its homework.

The American Medical Student Association (AMSA) released a report yesterday evaluating conflict-of-interest policies against industry influence at 150 medical schools. The study breaks down the assessment in 11 categories—including gifts, free samples, and other compensation, which reflect possible areas of conflict with pharmaceutical companies.

The Medical School was given an automatic F for not submitting its policies for evaluation, according to AMSA President Brian Hurley.

“We assumed that Harvard had no policy on pharmaceutical company advertising,” Hurley said. “If information on Harvard’s policies is submitted, we can update the University’s score at any time.”

David J. Cameron, a spokesman for the Medical School, said that he had not heard of the AMSA Scorecard before it came out yesterday.

Cameron added that the school’s conflict-of-interest policies, which are available online, are separate from those of the independently-governed affiliated hospitals. Currently, the Medical School allows faculty members to consult for companies on which they conduct clinical research, but they cannot receive more than $20,000 annually.

But Cameron said that Harvard is currently undergoing a University-wide review of its conflict-of-interest policies.

Medical School professor Eric G. Campbell said that Mass. General Hospital is currently revamping its policies to decrease industry influence, which he feels is an important issue facing all medical institutions.

“Recent data suggests that relationships with industry are ubiquitous in all aspects of medicine and research,” Campbell said. “Every single one.”

Although most relationships with pharmaceutical companies may negatively affect the performance or decisions of doctors and medical researchers, Campbell said that not all interactions should be discouraged, such as industry-funded research.

“The policies are likely to become more and more restrictive over time, but we have to be sure not to take it too far,” Campbell said. “But doctors should pay for their own lunches.”

A ‘FAIR SHARE OF THE PIE’

In other news, universities should not neglect the generation of young scientists and those who pursue “high-risk, high-reward” research, according to a report released Tuesday by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS).

The project was led by a panel of university presidents and Nobel laureates, including Howard Hughes Medical Institute President Thomas R. Cech, whose institution collaborates with Harvard to fund research.

The study also supports the findings of recent reports: conservative funding tends to result in conservative research, and the competition for federal funds is such that scientists spend more time applying and re-applying for grants than researching itself.

Leslie C. Berlowitz, the chief executive of the nationwide honor society, said that universities should at least strive to partially fund what she termed “early-career scientists,” who currently rely completely on outside funding.

Berlowitz added that the report also highlights the challenges female scientists face when juggling their careers and their families.

Unlike other reports such as the National Institutes of Health’s “A Broken Pipeline,” which pushes for higher funding levels, the Academy’s study focuses on the distribution of funding, which Berlowitz said is more important than the actual funding level itself.

“Even if the pie is small, it is important that these particular groups have their fair share of the pie,” Berlowitz said.

—Staff writer June Q. Wu can be reached at junewu@fas.harvard.edu.