The Stanford Medical School is currently confronting two scandals related to its doctors facing conflicts of interest related to their work for pharmaceutical companies.
One scandal is from earlier in December. Two psychiatrists, including one at Stanford university, have been accused of letting a company affiliated with pharmaceutical giant SmithKlineBeechum (now known as GlaxoSmithKline, following its merger with Glaxo Wellcome) effectively ghostwrite the book Recognition and Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: A Psychopharmacology Handbook for Primary Care. Although Stanford Medical School did not adopt a policy against ghostwriting until 2006, well after the 1999 publishing of the text, it still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of people who see the pharmaceutical industry as having too much influence over doctors.
The allegation came to light thanks to the Project on Government Oversight, a non-profit that investigates corruption and conflict-of-interest claims. Alan Schatzberger, the Stanford professor mentioned in the complaint, has not commented on the allegations, but the medical school itself has responded, with a spokesman saying that Schatzberger “strongly den[ies] that the manuscript was ghostwritten.” As Stanford lacked a policy against this practice at the time of the book and as Schatzberger has left the university, it seems as though little more will come of this accusation.
What about the other accusation?
The second accusation might be a bit more problematic: twelve Stanford physicians have been accused of violating Stanford’s 2009 ban on accepting money from drug companies for speaking engagements. The sums paid to the speakers tend to vastly outweigh the relatively modest consulting fees that many doctors receive. Stanford child psychiatrist Kiki Chang received $5,936 for consulting for Eli Lilly. Emeritus child psychiatrist Hans Steiner received an outsize $109,000 from the same company for a talk about its drug Strattera. Stanford Medical School dean Phil Pizzo says that the school is currently investigating these allegations, which were discovered by a different crusading non-profit, ProPublica. Some of the doctors seem to have honestly misunderstood the rules – Dr. Steiner, for example, was apparently under the impression that the rules did not cover emeritus professors. However, others clearly did not suffer such confusion. Pizzo noted:
Some individuals…had understandable reasons for confusion. Others, though, offered explanations why their activities continued that are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with our policy, and here we have concerns…This is unacceptable, certainly for anyone with a Stanford title.
It will be interesting to see what punishments, if any, are meted out by the school for non-compliant faculty, or if the current honor system of reporting is replaced with a more precise system. 12 doctors is a tiny number compared to the 1,500 Stanford-affiliated physicians, but keeping everyone honest should still be a goal of the institution.
Otis Reid blogs for Fiat Lux and is a staff writer for the Stanford Review.
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.