Spurious Motivation
In a study published in October 2006, Dr. Claudia Henschke, a cancer researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College, and her collaborator, Dr. David Yankelevitz, made a significant statement to the world of cancer research when they indicated that 80 percent of lung cancer deaths could be prevented if CT scans were used more ubiquitously as a method for early detection.
The problem, it turns out, is that the study was funded by a cigarette company.
In “Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study,” published March 26th in the New York Times, Gardiner Harris explored the link between the little-known charity funding Henschke’s research, the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention & Treatment, and the parent company of the Liggett Group, maker of Liggett Select, Eve, Grand Prix, Quest and Pyramid cigarette brands.
Hensche denies any implication that she tried to deceive the public, stating that the gift was announced publicly when it was received and that any kind of research on the internet might have revealed its source. However, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, seems to believe that there is some deception involved. “You have to ask yourself the question, ‘Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?’ ” Dr. Kassirer queried in the article. “They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that’s outrageous.”(1)
Hensche does have some lung-cancer advocacy organizations supporting her as a result of her research, and there’s even been an effort to bring legislation to New York, Massachusetts and California that will set up trusts to pay for some of the expenses of the CT scan. The revelation of her funding source, however, will taint those efforts.
Conflict of interest comes up all the time in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology companies, but the lines drawn between what is right and what is wrong can be faint in many cases. In this case, however, it seems clear to me that Hensche, even if she didn’t actively “hide” the truth, didn’t actively volunteer the effort. I know that as a researcher you must be creative in the ways you find your funding, but is sleeping with the enemy worth the risk of tainting your reputation as a researcher?
How do you feel about this?
(1) See “Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study,” Gardiner Harris, New York Times Online, March 26th, 2008.
