Around 2001, when I was a mood disorders fellow, I was asked to do an educational lecture by Organon, the manufacturer of the antidepressant mirtazapine. The company clearly wanted one of the more prominent mood disorders research psychiatrists to do the lecture--but since no one else was available, they settled for me. It was common practice for research psychiatrists or other perceived "leaders in the field" to be paid by drug companies for "educational lectures" attended by family physicians or other psychiatrists, usually at expensive restaurants or lavishly-catered hotel conference rooms (the drug company footing the bill, of course); I think this common practice remains. To be fair, I think everyone assumed that this was all fine, even a useful educational service. Probably many of those involved in this practice still believe that. And perhaps many of these lectures are useful educational services to some degree, it's just that both the lecturers and the recipients may be unaware of the biases involved. Anyway, my lecture was supposed to be about treating resistant depression. I was provided by the company rep with numerous powerpoint slides about mirtazapine to include in my lecture. I did the lecture, and was paid generously for it. I included a few of the slides about mirtazapine, but I truly tried to give a lecture broadly about treating resistant depression, and discussed mirtazapine for only about 20% of the talk. Clearly the company rep was not impressed with my performance, and I was never again asked to do a lecture for them. I'm glad of that, since the more one does these things, the more one can be convinced that it is professionally appropriate, despite the obvious biases involved.
Around 2000-2001 I was involved in a clinical study of a new drug. The drug company sponsored the study, flew everyone business-class to Monaco (on the French Riviera), and put us up in a lavish 5-star hotel, to attend an introductory meeting regarding the study. Such meetings, in my opinion, are utterly needless expenses. Introductions and instructions about a study can be done without transcontinental travel. Training for rating scales, etc., could be done in some other simple, standardized way, without any need for travel. I did enjoy the trip, and I wouldn't doubt that it contributed to my having a more favourable view of that company's products in the following years.
Also around 2000-2001 I was involved in another clinical study. The drug company, also sponsoring the study, flew everyone business-class to Miami, Florida, and put us up in a famous 5-star hotel. By this time I was starting to have more questions about the neutrality of the research, under these circumstances. Something that struck me during that trip was my observations of the company reps meticulously preparing their video presentation for us -- they were preparing a show; it was basically a slick info-mercial, sound-effects and all. I was also struck by the fact that no one around me seemed to notice this or have a critical view of it. I felt like, on the one hand, we were being treated like royalty, but on the other hand we were simply being bought. I realize that it is good for companies to make participation in research projects attractive to everyone involved. It can be frustrating work to recruit patients for clinical studies, and many psychiatrists would rather not take time away from other aspects of work to participate in research. Research is important, and maybe travel & adventure could be fair aspects to enjoying the life of a researcher. BUT -- the travel is really not necessary at all. It is an extravagance. Information and training about a research protocol can happen locally. Other communication can happen over the phone, over the net, or over a video link. The other expensive extravagances just reduce the neutrality of the study, and also bias all participants (many of whom are "leaders in the field" who often influence other practitioners) to have and convey a more favourable view of the company's products, irrespective of the results of the particular study.
I think it would be interesting to have disclosures in research papers not only about the authors' affiliations with, or income received from, the drug companies, but also about the travel expenses paid by the companies for meetings pertaining to the study in question.
A more mundane aspect of industry sponsorship, during my residency between 1995-2000, was the weekly phenomenon of the "drug lunch." Basically, during almost every group meeting or rounds, food would be provided by a drug rep--usually quite a tasty lunch.
A continuing aspect of industry sponsorship is the distribution of free samples. At times I find this quite useful, to help someone get started on something right away, without the time or expense of a pharmacy visit. At other times, people have not been able to afford medication (the most common psychiatric medications are available for free in BC, through a government plan, but many more exotic medications are not covered by this plan): in some cases, the drug companies have provided a free "compassionate release" supply of medication for extended periods of time. Yet, I recognize that these phenomena lead to bias. The presence of a particular sample can influence the choice of which particular medication to recommend, particularly when the different choices are all similarly effective.
I realize this post may come off sounding like some kind of anti-corporate rant. I don't want to slam corporations too much though -- thanks to large companies, we have many more treatments which can profoundly improve quality of life, and which can save many lives. Profit-oriented motivations can drive productivity, competition, and better research. It's just that we can't be swept into the current of advertising and other biased persuasive tactics which companies use to sell more of their products. We can sympathize with the reality that companies behave this way, but as health care professionals, or as individuals contemplating whether or not to take a particular medication or other treatment, we need to have information which is clear, unbiased, as objective as possible.