Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness - US News & World Report - 12/20/07

[Guest guest]

Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness

Critics say that touted efforts against conflicts fall short

By Kent Garber

Posted December 20, 2007

In what is arguably the most important mental-health development since the early

1990s, the American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years

producing a new edition of the psychiatrist's " bible, " the official guidebook

for diagnosing mental problems. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, as it is known, is hugely influential because it determines what is

and is not a mental disorder.

In turn, it is responsible for much of the sales growth in prescription drugs.

Related News

A Wake-Up Call on Campus (Sep. 13)

FDA Approves First Anti-Psychotic for Kids (Aug. 23)

When Depression Goes Untreated (July 29)

Join a Discussion

The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because

it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that

significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated

with shyness, for example, became symptoms of " social anxiety disorder. " And

drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems.

Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of

the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the

drug industry.

Transparency. This time around, pledging to avoid even the appearance of

conflicts, the APA has instituted screening procedures for the 27 members of its

DSM task force, asking them for detailed financial information about stocks,

honoraria, and consulting fees from drug interests. It calls the effort the

" most transparent " in the medical industry. Yet the summaries of the disclosure

statements that were recently released to the public are remarkably spare; they

show only the existence of corporate connections, not their dollar amount or

their duration. The result is a document that even an APA board member suggested

is not very revealing. In a 2006 memo to the board obtained by U.S. News,

Carpenter wrote: " Simple listing of all relationships is not very

informative and does not identify potential conflicts that may need to be

resolved. "

Critics say the limited information violates the spirit of disclosure. " There is

disclosure, and then there is disclosure, " says Carlat, a psychiatrist

and former consultant to drug companies. " There is a big difference between

$500,000 and $500. It is one thing to disclose in a generic way, to say that a

psychiatrist has had some consulting with a company, but that doesn't tell you a

number of things. "

Documents reviewed by U.S. News, including sec filings and patent requests, also

show connections between doctors and drug companies that don't necessarily turn

up in the disclosures. In general, the disclosures paint an incomplete picture

of the degree to which the corporate and clinical worlds are increasingly

enmeshed. In other cases, they simply reflect mistakes.

For example, Dilip Jeste, a professor of psychiatry at the University of

California-San Diego, had consulting ties that did not appear on his disclosure

form. Yet during the reporting year of 2003, he was a consultant to Pfizer and

AstraZeneca and received honoraria from Pfizer, according to documents. Jeste

called the error " unintentional, " saying he had relied on memory. The APA said

that Jeste would submit a new disclosure. APA President Carolyn Robinowitz said

that task force nominees " were on the honor system " and acknowledged that the

association had made no effort to check their accuracy.

The APA itself erred in its public summary for Jan Fawcett, a professor of

psychiatry at the University of New Mexico and chair of the DSM's mood disorders

work group. The summary lists no directorships or corporate positions for

Fawcett. But a 2005 sec filing shows that he was a member of the board of

directors for Berman Health and Media, a company that is poised to " exploit

opportunities in the female sexual medicine industry. " [He has since resigned

from the board.] The APA said that Fawcett had disclosed the connections in

private filings but that its staffers accidentally omitted them from the public

disclosure form.

Critics say the APA's disclosures are inadequate in other ways. Carpenter, for

instance, is listed as a " co-inventor " on two patents filed in the past three

years for " methods for screening, diagnosing and treating schizophrenia. " The

applications list pharmaceutical giant Novartis as the holder of at least one of

the patents. The APA said, and Carpenter confirmed, that Carpenter did not need

to disclose the connection because he has pledged to receive no financial

benefit from the patents at any time.

Likewise, Kupfer, the task force chair, reported multiple consulting

arrangements with communications companies that " sponsored pharmaceutical

meetings & editorial work. " His public form, however, does not reveal that

income from two of these companies, Prescott Communications and Innovative

Medical Education, came from work for Forrest Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer,

respectively. The APA said Kupfer did not need to disclose the ties because he

was not paid directly by drug companies.

Industry support. The existence of drug company links does not necessarily mean

the individuals reporting them are biased. In most instances, the APA says, the

relationships merely underscore a simple truth: that in the absence of adequate

government support, more than two thirds of all medical research funding comes

from pharmaceutical companies.

Yet studies have repeatedly shown a connection between authors who received

income from drug companies and published papers favoring the firms' products.

The papers also tend to underreport negative side effects.

In acknowledgment of such problems, the APA's vetting procedures are stronger

than those of other medical organizations. And the sacrifices required of task

force members are hardly insignificant: Before being appointed, members pledged

to limit their aggregate income from pharmaceutical sources to $10,000 a year.

If their income exceeded that amount, they were required to reduce it or sever

ties.

But critics say that loopholes weaken the policy. One is that task force members

can undertake new financial arrangements after being appointed. Second, task

force members are not asked to disclose " unrestricted research grants, " which

often go straight to one's department or institution. Cosgrove, a clinical

psychologist at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, describes such grants as

a " hollow open-door policy " giving pharmaceutical companies strong influence.

" If your department has a $500,000 unrestricted grant from a drug company, with

the potential of getting $2 million, it is disingenuous to assume that there are

no potential conflicts. "

Some APA members have asked association officials to strip voting privileges

from all DSM committee members with industry ties. " If someone's expertise is

deemed necessary, they can serve as consultant but not as a voting member, " says

Amy Brodkey, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the

27 task force members, eight had no ties to the industry.

APA officials say such changes are unnecessary since several APA groups have to

approve the DSM before it's published. " What you've got is several layers of

protection, " says APA Medical Director Scully. One layer to watch: the

more than 150 people who will fill out the DSM work groups. Scully said the

appointments should be complete by early 2008. And they will be asked to

disclose ties.

Tags: mental illness | APA

Print |

Subscribe |

+ Share this Story |

Sphere: Related Content

Copyright © 2007 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made

available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights,

democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This

transmittal constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness

Critics say that touted efforts against conflicts fall short

By Kent Garber

Posted December 20, 2007

In what is arguably the most important mental-health development since the early

1990s, the American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years

producing a new edition of the psychiatrist's " bible, " the official guidebook

for diagnosing mental problems. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, as it is known, is hugely influential because it determines what is

and is not a mental disorder.

In turn, it is responsible for much of the sales growth in prescription drugs.

Related News

A Wake-Up Call on Campus (Sep. 13)

FDA Approves First Anti-Psychotic for Kids (Aug. 23)

When Depression Goes Untreated (July 29)

Join a Discussion

The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because

it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that

significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated

with shyness, for example, became symptoms of " social anxiety disorder. " And

drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems.

Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of

the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the

drug industry.

Transparency. This time around, pledging to avoid even the appearance of

conflicts, the APA has instituted screening procedures for the 27 members of its

DSM task force, asking them for detailed financial information about stocks,

honoraria, and consulting fees from drug interests. It calls the effort the

" most transparent " in the medical industry. Yet the summaries of the disclosure

statements that were recently released to the public are remarkably spare; they

show only the existence of corporate connections, not their dollar amount or

their duration. The result is a document that even an APA board member suggested

is not very revealing. In a 2006 memo to the board obtained by U.S. News,

Carpenter wrote: " Simple listing of all relationships is not very

informative and does not identify potential conflicts that may need to be

resolved. "

Critics say the limited information violates the spirit of disclosure. " There is

disclosure, and then there is disclosure, " says Carlat, a psychiatrist

and former consultant to drug companies. " There is a big difference between

$500,000 and $500. It is one thing to disclose in a generic way, to say that a

psychiatrist has had some consulting with a company, but that doesn't tell you a

number of things. "

Documents reviewed by U.S. News, including sec filings and patent requests, also

show connections between doctors and drug companies that don't necessarily turn

up in the disclosures. In general, the disclosures paint an incomplete picture

of the degree to which the corporate and clinical worlds are increasingly

enmeshed. In other cases, they simply reflect mistakes.

For example, Dilip Jeste, a professor of psychiatry at the University of

California-San Diego, had consulting ties that did not appear on his disclosure

form. Yet during the reporting year of 2003, he was a consultant to Pfizer and

AstraZeneca and received honoraria from Pfizer, according to documents. Jeste

called the error " unintentional, " saying he had relied on memory. The APA said

that Jeste would submit a new disclosure. APA President Carolyn Robinowitz said

that task force nominees " were on the honor system " and acknowledged that the

association had made no effort to check their accuracy.

The APA itself erred in its public summary for Jan Fawcett, a professor of

psychiatry at the University of New Mexico and chair of the DSM's mood disorders

work group. The summary lists no directorships or corporate positions for

Fawcett. But a 2005 sec filing shows that he was a member of the board of

directors for Berman Health and Media, a company that is poised to " exploit

opportunities in the female sexual medicine industry. " [He has since resigned

from the board.] The APA said that Fawcett had disclosed the connections in

private filings but that its staffers accidentally omitted them from the public

disclosure form.

Critics say the APA's disclosures are inadequate in other ways. Carpenter, for

instance, is listed as a " co-inventor " on two patents filed in the past three

years for " methods for screening, diagnosing and treating schizophrenia. " The

applications list pharmaceutical giant Novartis as the holder of at least one of

the patents. The APA said, and Carpenter confirmed, that Carpenter did not need

to disclose the connection because he has pledged to receive no financial

benefit from the patents at any time.

Likewise, Kupfer, the task force chair, reported multiple consulting

arrangements with communications companies that " sponsored pharmaceutical

meetings & editorial work. " His public form, however, does not reveal that

income from two of these companies, Prescott Communications and Innovative

Medical Education, came from work for Forrest Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer,

respectively. The APA said Kupfer did not need to disclose the ties because he

was not paid directly by drug companies.

Industry support. The existence of drug company links does not necessarily mean

the individuals reporting them are biased. In most instances, the APA says, the

relationships merely underscore a simple truth: that in the absence of adequate

government support, more than two thirds of all medical research funding comes

from pharmaceutical companies.

Yet studies have repeatedly shown a connection between authors who received

income from drug companies and published papers favoring the firms' products.

The papers also tend to underreport negative side effects.

In acknowledgment of such problems, the APA's vetting procedures are stronger

than those of other medical organizations. And the sacrifices required of task

force members are hardly insignificant: Before being appointed, members pledged

to limit their aggregate income from pharmaceutical sources to $10,000 a year.

If their income exceeded that amount, they were required to reduce it or sever

ties.

But critics say that loopholes weaken the policy. One is that task force members

can undertake new financial arrangements after being appointed. Second, task

force members are not asked to disclose " unrestricted research grants, " which

often go straight to one's department or institution. Cosgrove, a clinical

psychologist at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, describes such grants as

a " hollow open-door policy " giving pharmaceutical companies strong influence.

" If your department has a $500,000 unrestricted grant from a drug company, with

the potential of getting $2 million, it is disingenuous to assume that there are

no potential conflicts. "

Some APA members have asked association officials to strip voting privileges

from all DSM committee members with industry ties. " If someone's expertise is

deemed necessary, they can serve as consultant but not as a voting member, " says

Amy Brodkey, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the

27 task force members, eight had no ties to the industry.

APA officials say such changes are unnecessary since several APA groups have to

approve the DSM before it's published. " What you've got is several layers of

protection, " says APA Medical Director Scully. One layer to watch: the

more than 150 people who will fill out the DSM work groups. Scully said the

appointments should be complete by early 2008. And they will be asked to

disclose ties.

Tags: mental illness | APA

Print |

Subscribe |

+ Share this Story |

Sphere: Related Content

Copyright © 2007 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made

available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights,

democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This

transmittal constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness

Critics say that touted efforts against conflicts fall short

By Kent Garber

Posted December 20, 2007

In what is arguably the most important mental-health development since the early

1990s, the American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years

producing a new edition of the psychiatrist's " bible, " the official guidebook

for diagnosing mental problems. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, as it is known, is hugely influential because it determines what is

and is not a mental disorder.

In turn, it is responsible for much of the sales growth in prescription drugs.

Related News

A Wake-Up Call on Campus (Sep. 13)

FDA Approves First Anti-Psychotic for Kids (Aug. 23)

When Depression Goes Untreated (July 29)

Join a Discussion

The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because

it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that

significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated

with shyness, for example, became symptoms of " social anxiety disorder. " And

drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems.

Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of

the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the

drug industry.

Transparency. This time around, pledging to avoid even the appearance of

conflicts, the APA has instituted screening procedures for the 27 members of its

DSM task force, asking them for detailed financial information about stocks,

honoraria, and consulting fees from drug interests. It calls the effort the

" most transparent " in the medical industry. Yet the summaries of the disclosure

statements that were recently released to the public are remarkably spare; they

show only the existence of corporate connections, not their dollar amount or

their duration. The result is a document that even an APA board member suggested

is not very revealing. In a 2006 memo to the board obtained by U.S. News,

Carpenter wrote: " Simple listing of all relationships is not very

informative and does not identify potential conflicts that may need to be

resolved. "

Critics say the limited information violates the spirit of disclosure. " There is

disclosure, and then there is disclosure, " says Carlat, a psychiatrist

and former consultant to drug companies. " There is a big difference between

$500,000 and $500. It is one thing to disclose in a generic way, to say that a

psychiatrist has had some consulting with a company, but that doesn't tell you a

number of things. "

Documents reviewed by U.S. News, including sec filings and patent requests, also

show connections between doctors and drug companies that don't necessarily turn

up in the disclosures. In general, the disclosures paint an incomplete picture

of the degree to which the corporate and clinical worlds are increasingly

enmeshed. In other cases, they simply reflect mistakes.

For example, Dilip Jeste, a professor of psychiatry at the University of

California-San Diego, had consulting ties that did not appear on his disclosure

form. Yet during the reporting year of 2003, he was a consultant to Pfizer and

AstraZeneca and received honoraria from Pfizer, according to documents. Jeste

called the error " unintentional, " saying he had relied on memory. The APA said

that Jeste would submit a new disclosure. APA President Carolyn Robinowitz said

that task force nominees " were on the honor system " and acknowledged that the

association had made no effort to check their accuracy.

The APA itself erred in its public summary for Jan Fawcett, a professor of

psychiatry at the University of New Mexico and chair of the DSM's mood disorders

work group. The summary lists no directorships or corporate positions for

Fawcett. But a 2005 sec filing shows that he was a member of the board of

directors for Berman Health and Media, a company that is poised to " exploit

opportunities in the female sexual medicine industry. " [He has since resigned

from the board.] The APA said that Fawcett had disclosed the connections in

private filings but that its staffers accidentally omitted them from the public

disclosure form.

Critics say the APA's disclosures are inadequate in other ways. Carpenter, for

instance, is listed as a " co-inventor " on two patents filed in the past three

years for " methods for screening, diagnosing and treating schizophrenia. " The

applications list pharmaceutical giant Novartis as the holder of at least one of

the patents. The APA said, and Carpenter confirmed, that Carpenter did not need

to disclose the connection because he has pledged to receive no financial

benefit from the patents at any time.

Likewise, Kupfer, the task force chair, reported multiple consulting

arrangements with communications companies that " sponsored pharmaceutical

meetings & editorial work. " His public form, however, does not reveal that

income from two of these companies, Prescott Communications and Innovative

Medical Education, came from work for Forrest Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer,

respectively. The APA said Kupfer did not need to disclose the ties because he

was not paid directly by drug companies.

Industry support. The existence of drug company links does not necessarily mean

the individuals reporting them are biased. In most instances, the APA says, the

relationships merely underscore a simple truth: that in the absence of adequate

government support, more than two thirds of all medical research funding comes

from pharmaceutical companies.

Yet studies have repeatedly shown a connection between authors who received

income from drug companies and published papers favoring the firms' products.

The papers also tend to underreport negative side effects.

In acknowledgment of such problems, the APA's vetting procedures are stronger

than those of other medical organizations. And the sacrifices required of task

force members are hardly insignificant: Before being appointed, members pledged

to limit their aggregate income from pharmaceutical sources to $10,000 a year.

If their income exceeded that amount, they were required to reduce it or sever

ties.

But critics say that loopholes weaken the policy. One is that task force members

can undertake new financial arrangements after being appointed. Second, task

force members are not asked to disclose " unrestricted research grants, " which

often go straight to one's department or institution. Cosgrove, a clinical

psychologist at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, describes such grants as

a " hollow open-door policy " giving pharmaceutical companies strong influence.

" If your department has a $500,000 unrestricted grant from a drug company, with

the potential of getting $2 million, it is disingenuous to assume that there are

no potential conflicts. "

Some APA members have asked association officials to strip voting privileges

from all DSM committee members with industry ties. " If someone's expertise is

deemed necessary, they can serve as consultant but not as a voting member, " says

Amy Brodkey, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the

27 task force members, eight had no ties to the industry.

APA officials say such changes are unnecessary since several APA groups have to

approve the DSM before it's published. " What you've got is several layers of

protection, " says APA Medical Director Scully. One layer to watch: the

more than 150 people who will fill out the DSM work groups. Scully said the

appointments should be complete by early 2008. And they will be asked to

disclose ties.

Tags: mental illness | APA

Print |

Subscribe |

+ Share this Story |

Sphere: Related Content

Copyright © 2007 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made

available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights,

democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This

transmittal constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

Who's Behind the Bible of Mental Illness

Critics say that touted efforts against conflicts fall short

By Kent Garber

Posted December 20, 2007

In what is arguably the most important mental-health development since the early

1990s, the American Psychiatric Association will spend the next five years

producing a new edition of the psychiatrist's " bible, " the official guidebook

for diagnosing mental problems. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, as it is known, is hugely influential because it determines what is

and is not a mental disorder.

In turn, it is responsible for much of the sales growth in prescription drugs.

Related News

A Wake-Up Call on Campus (Sep. 13)

FDA Approves First Anti-Psychotic for Kids (Aug. 23)

When Depression Goes Untreated (July 29)

Join a Discussion

The most recent edition of the DSM, published in 1994, drew controversy because

it turned what had once been a thin guidebook into an 886-page tome that

significantly expanded the definition of mental illness. Traits once associated

with shyness, for example, became symptoms of " social anxiety disorder. " And

drug companies went on to spend millions promoting medicines for those problems.

Eyebrows were further raised in 2006 when a study showed that more than half of

the researchers who worked on the manual had at least one financial tie to the

drug industry.

Transparency. This time around, pledging to avoid even the appearance of

conflicts, the APA has instituted screening procedures for the 27 members of its

DSM task force, asking them for detailed financial information about stocks,

honoraria, and consulting fees from drug interests. It calls the effort the

" most transparent " in the medical industry. Yet the summaries of the disclosure

statements that were recently released to the public are remarkably spare; they

show only the existence of corporate connections, not their dollar amount or

their duration. The result is a document that even an APA board member suggested

is not very revealing. In a 2006 memo to the board obtained by U.S. News,

Carpenter wrote: " Simple listing of all relationships is not very

informative and does not identify potential conflicts that may need to be

resolved. "

Critics say the limited information violates the spirit of disclosure. " There is

disclosure, and then there is disclosure, " says Carlat, a psychiatrist

and former consultant to drug companies. " There is a big difference between

$500,000 and $500. It is one thing to disclose in a generic way, to say that a

psychiatrist has had some consulting with a company, but that doesn't tell you a

number of things. "

Documents reviewed by U.S. News, including sec filings and patent requests, also

show connections between doctors and drug companies that don't necessarily turn

up in the disclosures. In general, the disclosures paint an incomplete picture

of the degree to which the corporate and clinical worlds are increasingly

enmeshed. In other cases, they simply reflect mistakes.

For example, Dilip Jeste, a professor of psychiatry at the University of

California-San Diego, had consulting ties that did not appear on his disclosure

form. Yet during the reporting year of 2003, he was a consultant to Pfizer and

AstraZeneca and received honoraria from Pfizer, according to documents. Jeste

called the error " unintentional, " saying he had relied on memory. The APA said

that Jeste would submit a new disclosure. APA President Carolyn Robinowitz said

that task force nominees " were on the honor system " and acknowledged that the

association had made no effort to check their accuracy.

The APA itself erred in its public summary for Jan Fawcett, a professor of

psychiatry at the University of New Mexico and chair of the DSM's mood disorders

work group. The summary lists no directorships or corporate positions for

Fawcett. But a 2005 sec filing shows that he was a member of the board of

directors for Berman Health and Media, a company that is poised to " exploit

opportunities in the female sexual medicine industry. " [He has since resigned

from the board.] The APA said that Fawcett had disclosed the connections in

private filings but that its staffers accidentally omitted them from the public

disclosure form.

Critics say the APA's disclosures are inadequate in other ways. Carpenter, for

instance, is listed as a " co-inventor " on two patents filed in the past three

years for " methods for screening, diagnosing and treating schizophrenia. " The

applications list pharmaceutical giant Novartis as the holder of at least one of

the patents. The APA said, and Carpenter confirmed, that Carpenter did not need

to disclose the connection because he has pledged to receive no financial

benefit from the patents at any time.

Likewise, Kupfer, the task force chair, reported multiple consulting

arrangements with communications companies that " sponsored pharmaceutical

meetings & editorial work. " His public form, however, does not reveal that

income from two of these companies, Prescott Communications and Innovative

Medical Education, came from work for Forrest Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer,

respectively. The APA said Kupfer did not need to disclose the ties because he

was not paid directly by drug companies.

Industry support. The existence of drug company links does not necessarily mean

the individuals reporting them are biased. In most instances, the APA says, the

relationships merely underscore a simple truth: that in the absence of adequate

government support, more than two thirds of all medical research funding comes

from pharmaceutical companies.

Yet studies have repeatedly shown a connection between authors who received

income from drug companies and published papers favoring the firms' products.

The papers also tend to underreport negative side effects.

In acknowledgment of such problems, the APA's vetting procedures are stronger

than those of other medical organizations. And the sacrifices required of task

force members are hardly insignificant: Before being appointed, members pledged

to limit their aggregate income from pharmaceutical sources to $10,000 a year.

If their income exceeded that amount, they were required to reduce it or sever

ties.

But critics say that loopholes weaken the policy. One is that task force members

can undertake new financial arrangements after being appointed. Second, task

force members are not asked to disclose " unrestricted research grants, " which

often go straight to one's department or institution. Cosgrove, a clinical

psychologist at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, describes such grants as

a " hollow open-door policy " giving pharmaceutical companies strong influence.

" If your department has a $500,000 unrestricted grant from a drug company, with

the potential of getting $2 million, it is disingenuous to assume that there are

no potential conflicts. "

Some APA members have asked association officials to strip voting privileges

from all DSM committee members with industry ties. " If someone's expertise is

deemed necessary, they can serve as consultant but not as a voting member, " says

Amy Brodkey, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. Of the

27 task force members, eight had no ties to the industry.

APA officials say such changes are unnecessary since several APA groups have to

approve the DSM before it's published. " What you've got is several layers of

protection, " says APA Medical Director Scully. One layer to watch: the

more than 150 people who will fill out the DSM work groups. Scully said the

appointments should be complete by early 2008. And they will be asked to

disclose ties.

Tags: mental illness | APA

Print |

Subscribe |

+ Share this Story |

Sphere: Related Content

Copyright © 2007 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made

available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights,

democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This

transmittal constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This

material is distributed without profit.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping