Wow - you hit that right on the head, especially since you ignore the fact that Sen. Grassley has no problem investigating the companies and industries that donate money to his campaign.

Do your homework first before you go ahead an make an ignorant comment about a "conflict of interest."

His legislation calls for a national database to disclose the relationships between the industry and physicians. Perhaps you can point out to everyone the point where he says that he wants to prohibit these practices or make it more difficult.

Hey, Tombo, or should I say, "member of Senator Grassley's office," welcome and thanks for the comment. Next time, please leave your full name and email address so that we're on even footing when discussing this (it's not nice to insult someone while hiding behind a pseudonym).

Any time a legislator wants greater oversight, he/she is certainly intending on making it harder to do something. Reporting, especially per federal standards, is always an arduous, expensive process, and companies often elect not to do the reported activity rather than try to comply with the reporting guidelines. Sen. Grassley's call is no different.

Grassley is notorious for being critical of academic and research institutions, despite their role in keeping this country at the forefront of medical (and other) technologies.

He is hypocritical when he says doctors are "for sale" simply because they accept industry research funding. Without proof that the physicians are altering their practice to the detriment of their patients because of the funding (which he does not offer...does the researcher he's making an example of even see patients on a clinical basis?), he's essentially equating funding with influence. Yet, and this is the important part, he (like you, apparently) would bristle at the implication that an organization is buying his influence when donating to his reelection campaign. Is that not holding others to a different standard than you wish yourself to be held? And is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

tomanon33@yahoo.com (EMAIL). Does that suffice? Due to the obviously "traffic" to your blog, I suspected you might be a bit flattered that someone actually made a comment on one of your postings. I was compelled to post only by the fact that pertinent information was lacking from your comments which must of led to your conclusion, which I disagree with.

No, I am not a member of Sen. Grassley's staff, just someone who follows the health care industry pretty intensely. So, feel free to speculate about my employment status because I am making comments antithetical to your point. Your powers of deduction are truly remarkable.

Industry/companies, while faced with regulations that consume considerable resources, more or less have two choices: (1) Ignore compliance requirements and calculate penalties into the cost of doing business, or (2) adhere to compliance requirements, bolster your standing among stakeholders/regulators and minimize inquiry. Yes, greater oversight may make it more difficult to conduct business in some cases; I for one am a strong proponent of the free market and minimizing government regulations. However, your statement ignores the fact that in some cases, regulations are needed and sometimes can create a freer market.

I do not counter that Grassley has, in the past, been critical of academic and research institutions. However, I am confused by your assertion, and absence of evidence, that this oversight is prohibiting innovation in the medical technology and other sectors. What is your evidence that his criticism will prohibit progress?

I still fail to see your point regarding hypocrisy. While the �for sale� comment may be colorful, there are numerous studies and advisory opinions (i.e HHS Office of Inspector General reports) that indicate a strong correlation between industry funded continuing education programs and the use of off-label drugs by doctors associated with such education programs. To be quite frank, pharmaceutical and device companies would not be spending as much money on the practice if they were not seeing some, if not a substantial return on their investment. Public officials also appear to fall into this quid pro quo scenario. However, and trust me, I am not really a fan of too many politicians, the level of donations received by politicians is so diverse and vast that it is typically difficult to cater to one special interest. And although you point out that Grassley receives a substantial level of donations from the health care industry, it seems to be that for someone who is suppose to �bow down� to the hand the feeds them, he seems to be biting at them any chance he gets (it would be difficult to find someone so critical of the pharmaceutical/device industry than Grassley). Despite that, there are also limitations on the amount of money that can be donated to anyone candidate while there is no such limit in how much industry provides for �education.� This researcher received a pretty substantial amount from a single company, and it is not entirely clear what for. If a oil company or pharmaceutical company donated an equivalent amount to a candidate, red flags would go up (of course, it is illegal). If Grassley truly was �for sale,� I do not believe that he would be as aggressive in going after this particular industry.

I understand your concerns about this particular incident, as it affects someone in your University community. However, I do not believe that you can adequate make a conclusion that someone is a hypocrite based on a single article regarding someone in your profession

. Enjoy your Skyline Chili.

Dearest Tomaso,
Let's set a few things straight.

First, you think I'm flattered by your comment? Hardly. You are but one of several thousand people who visit this site each week and yours are but two of several thousand comments left. The fact that you seem compelled to use your visit to my personal blog to insult me, even beyond merely refuting my point, is a bit beyond the pale, really.

As far as your points go, you make some good arguments. However, I think it's a bit naive to believe that Senator Grassley is doing this purely out of a conviction that corporate funding of research is harming patients. While there is the risk of conflict-of-interest any time funding comes from an interested party, I believe Grassley is being disingenuous in his assertions that more bureaucracy is somehow the answer to eliminating the tiny percentage of cases where inappropriate influence occurs. What exactly would happen if his idea is implemented? So there's a public record that Dr. So-and-so received $50K from Merk to examine the effects of XYZ drug. How many of his patients do you think would bother to check? More importantly, how much more reporting would there actually be than there is now given existing requirements? It's likely the answers to those questions are very few and very little, suggesting that the actual impact on public health of Grassley's proposal is minimal, if any.

Have you considered the possiblity that Grassley might get such significant contributions from the health care industry BECAUSE of his efforts (or threats) to encumber them with legislation? I'm sure those firms feel a dollar spent on fending off someone who could make their lives a bit less comfortable is better spent than giving it to a politician who doesn't regularly deal with that industry.

I, too, have interest in healthcare, primarily because it needs all the assistance it can get to avoid bankrupting our country. If researchers had all the federal, state, and local money they needed to do their work, then there'd be no need for private funding. But they don't, so there is. I'm all for accountability, but that's not the debate. The point here is that Grassley's call is neither valuable nor appropriate, and his assertion that privately funded researchers are somehow automatically less ethical than those who don't is hypocritical in the face of his own extensive political fundraising. Why does he want 100% of corporate research funds publicly reported through some extensive federal bureaucracy when not even 100% of his own political donations are available as part of the public record? By any definition, that is hypocrisy.

If you want to respond, please do so civilly. Discourse is welcome; personal attacks are not.