1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
Side Effects By John Fauber
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
March 14 (with sidebar); May 30; July 14; August 29 (with sidebar); November 28; and December 27. All are part of a designated ongoing series about conflicts of interest in medicine.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Stories are part of an on-going series on conflicts of interest in medicine. The March 14 story was about the pharmaceutical industry using more private doctors to do promotional speaking for its drugs as universities banned such activities. The May 30 story was about academic physicians being used by drug companies to conduct clinical trials while those companies controlled the clinical trial data. The July 14 story was the result of a Wisconsin Open Records lawsuit filed by the Journal Sentinel against the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine to obtain emails of doctors' comments about UW's conflict of interest policy. The August 29 story was about the FDA's approval of a revolutionary back surgery device based on clinical research by several orthopedic surgeons who stood to benefit financially. The November 28 story was about the FDA's approval of jaw joint replacement devices despite flimsy clinical trial data from doctors who had financial ties to the companies that made the devices.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Drug company lists of payments to doctors, articles in medical journals, transcripts of FDA advisory panel hearings, FDA device approval documents, and information from drug and device company web sites. Emails of university doctors about a new conflict of interest policy, records that were obtained after the Journal Sentinel filed a state Open Records lawsuit against the university.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Interviews with doctors, patients, researchers, FDA officials, editors of medical journals and drug and device company executives.
6. Results (if any).
Stories have shed more light on the many conflicts of interest in medicine.
7. 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.
No
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Transcripts of FDA advisory panel hearings can be a valuable resource when doing stories about questionable medical devices and drugs. Financial disclosure forms filed by academic physicians with their universities may contain important information of about conflicts of interest.