Harvard University and Dr. Joseph Biederman
World-famous Harvard child psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman, whose work has been a crucial factor in the rise of powerful antipsychotic medication Court documents released in November 2008 portray Biederman as courting drug company money by promising that his work at Massachusetts General Hospital would promote the use of antipsychotic drugs for youngsters. He is one of the country's most prominent advocates of diagnosing bipolar disorder in children, some under the age of 6, and using these drugs to treat them, even when federal regulators had yet to approve that specific use drugs. Things only got worse for Biederman in late November: court documents from Johnson & Johnson revealed that Biederman pushed the drug company to finance a research center at the Massachusetts General Hospital with the goal to "move forward the commercial goals of J&J" (they gave over $700,000 to the center in 2002 alone). J&J makes the popular antipsychotic drug Risperdal, more than a quarter of which is prescribed to young kids. FDA panels have argued that the use of anti-pyschotics in children is overdone, though Biederman has been instrumental in pushing this specific use of the drugs (he was named in many lawsuits filed by parents suing drug companies for negative effects of drugs being taken by their children). Grassley, however, wasn't through with the nation's most famous medical institution. In response to a New York Times article in March 2009 describing a Pfizer representative caught taking cellphone pictures of Harvard Medical students during a campus demonstration against industry influence, Senator Charles Grassley demanded the very next day that the pharmaceutical company disclose information about its payments to the school's doctors. The Iowa senator feared that "pharmaceutical companies have attempted to intimidate academic critics of drugs." When a university or corporation prides itself on efficiency and world-class results, a single hiccup can cause major tremors (whether as a result of true internal reorganization efforts, or the desire to put on a public persona of personal responsibility, is up for debate). After a rough summer in 2008, and a grade of F from the American Medical Student Association for its medical conflict-of-interest policy, Harvard announced that it was stepping up its effort to regulate its own doctors (though it claimed that internal reorganizing had nothing to do with the Senate investigations). Whatever school officials or federal investigators claim, however, actions speak louder than words: On July 21, 2010, Harvard Medical School announced a new policy forbidding its professors from accepting industry money for talks, or free handouts in the forms of meals, gifts or travel.
for children, never reported to university officials the at least $1.6 million he earned in consulting fees from drug makers between 2000 and 2007. Wrapped up in the same Congressional investigation were Dr. Timothy E. Wilens and Dr. Thomas Spencer, both of whom failed to report at least $1.6 million and $1 million, respectively. These stated earnings, however, may still fail to tell the whole picture, as the stories offered by the doctors and the drug companies widely differ: in his original report of income from drug companies, Biderman first claimed to have made nothing from J&J in 2001, but then claimed to have received $3,500. J&J, meanwhile, claims it gave the doctor $58,169 in 2001.