When is the critic-at-large the ultimate example of the "conflicted" interest?

An interesting, and well-written article in the NY Times today discusses the most recent career ambition of Dr. Steven Nissen, the cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic whose outspoken views on the risks of COX-2 inhibitors and Avandia have drawn dramatic headlines and FDA attention.  The NEJM jumped on this latest post-Vioxx bandwagon early, fitting, as it did, so well in Dr. Jeff Drazen’s lightly veiled and vociferous anti-industry campaign.  Of course, Dr. Drazen’s long-time lucrative association with Merck, and the Singulair program, as well as a large number of pharmaceutical companies for which he was a key opinion-leader for many years and from which he profited handsomely, is now just a distant memory, rarely spoken of since he’s taken his post at the NEJM.  Dr. Nissan seems cut from the same hypocritical cloth.  Though Dr. Nissen likes to think of himself as “both an insider and an outsider”, one is left wondering if in fact he’s neither.  Instead his position seems driven more by self-promotion, and using the “bully pulpit” of academia to over-promote marginally statistically significant results as a intentional slaughter of the innocents by big pharma.  The results of his Avandia meta-analysis are not significant in the strictest sense and would not be accepted by the NEJM if they came from anyone other than an academic with a reputation for indicting Big Pharma.  And yet, the NY Times article nicely outlines how things are never quite as clear or idealistic as they seem when individuals’ careers are carefully analyzed.   

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/business/22nissen.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin