- journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/FRESHSCIENCEforClinicians/pages/post.aspx?PostID=20
- journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/FRESHSCIENCEforClinicians/pages/post.aspx?PostID=29
- journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/FRESHSCIENCEforClinicians/pages/post.aspx?PostID=1
- bit.ly/OT-FRESHScience
Provide names of other journalists involved.
Serena Stockwell, Editor
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
February 17, 2011 March 24, 2011 July 1, 2011
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Each of the three stories, though technically independent articles, is focused on a different aspect of patient safety and conflicting interests in the era of high-profit research. The first story reports on a study in which researchers found that members of internal review boards, which exist to protect patients, often feel pressure from multiple allegiances. The topic is critical for patient safety and yet receives very little attention from academic research and even less attention in the media. The second piece describes unexpected allegations in an on-going case of researcher misconduct. One of the government researchers looking into the work of Anil Potti at Duke University revealed to an Institute of Medicine committee that a whistleblower had contacted her with concerns that Potti had corrupted patient-level data. The government scientist also made clear that the Duke institutional review board had been alerted to potential problems early on, but did not act on the information. The third article specifically raises the issue of institutional conflict of interest in the handling of Anil Potti’s case at Duke. In a situation repeated at research institutions across the country, Duke held intellectual property rights to the researcher’s work and stood to earn many millions of dollars if it succeeded. Yet the scientific community has hardly dealt with issues of institutional conflict of interest, focusing instead on individual conflicts. The article explains how such conflicts can put subtle pressure on community members, including institutional review board members. It also describes some specific evidence from Duke suggesting that conflicts may have clouded individuals’ better judgment and compromised patient safety.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
I used a published journal article for the basis of the first article. I also used some of the documents included in the public access file for the relevant Institute of Medicine committee, as well as documents posted online by another trade publication.
Explain types of human sources used.
My long-standing beat is cancer research and I had been following the problems at Duke for some time. The public testimony at the Institute of Medicine was a rich source for material, but the stories came about, in large part, from discussions I had with researchers, on and off the record. I also reached out to experts in the field, who were not directly involved in the Duke case, but who had been concerned about these issues in general.
Results:
I know that the Institute of Medicine committee members are aware of my articles and recognize that this is an issue of public concern. The committee’s report is due out later this year, and I can only hope that they will call for an examination and tightening of the rules regarding institutional conflict of interest.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
I continue to write about these issues and have received a number of positive comments from physician researchers.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
My advice would be to look for the interesting side angles in big stories. A lot of publications are writing about Anil Potti and trying to dig up the details of his misdeeds. However, I think the more important aspects of the story lie in the generalities of the case: Why did university officials continue to look the other way when other researchers were crying foul? How can institutional review boards remain focused on patient safety in the face of institutional rewards or pressure? If these boards cannot remain true to the goal of patient safety, what other mechanisms can be put in place to protect patients? As far as I can tell, no one else is reporting on these issues, so I’ve created a niche for myself in the midst of a crowded field.