Leemon McHenry

Journals are failing in their obligation to ensure that research is fairly represented to their readers, and must act decisively to retract fraudulent publications. Recent case reports have exposed how marketing objectives usurped scientific testing and compromised the credibility of academic medicine. But scant attention has been given to the role that journals play in this process, especially when evidence of research fraud fails to elicit corrective measures. Our experience with The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP) illustrates the nature of the problem. The now-infamous Study 329 of paroxetine in adolescent depression was negative for efficacy on all eight protocol-specified outcomes and positive for harm, but JAACAP published a report of this study that concluded that “paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.” The journal’s editors not only failed to exercise critical judgment in accepting the paper, but when shown evidence that the paper misrepresented the science, refused either to convey this information to the medical community or to retract the article.

U svom remek- djelu, Proces i realnost (1929.), s podnaslovom Rasprava s područja kozmologije, Whitehead se bavio kozmologijom kao dijelom svoje opće metafizike procesa. Metafizika traga za najopćenitijim načelima realnosti. Kako je rekao, »to je znanost koja želi otkriti opće ideje koje su neophodne za analizu svega što se zbiva « (RM 84). Metafizika stoga traga za načelima koja su nužna u svim mogućim svjetovima ili kozmičkim epohama, a kozmologija otkriva pomoću promatranja onoga što su primjeri za naš aktualni svijet ili ovu kozmičku epohu.

Traditionally, the three-pronged mission of our colleges and universities has been to provide high-quality education, encourage cutting-edge research, and promote professional and community service. The substitution of business-based policies for sound academic principles, however, has institutionalized a form of professional inequality that threatens all three. The growing distinction between tenured and tenure-track faculty members on the one hand and tenure-ineligible lecturers or part-time adjuncts on the other has produced an academic caste system that is undermining the raison d’être of our institutions of higher learning. This system is capricious, discriminatory, and unjust.

The goal of this paper is to expose the research misconduct of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials via three short case studies of corrupted psychiatric trials that were conducted in the United States. We discuss the common elements that enable the misrepresentation of clinical trial results including ghostwriting for medical journals, the role of key opinion leaders as co-conspirators with the pharmaceutical industry and the complicity of top medical journals in failing to uphold standards of science and peer review. We conclude that the corruption of industry-sponsored clinical trials is one of the major obstacles facing evidence-based medicine.

This paper is a deconstruction of a ghostwritten report of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety trial of citalopram in depressed children and adolescents conducted in the United States. Court documents revealed that protocol-specified outcome measures showed no statistically significant difference between citalopram and placebo. However, the published article concluded that citalopram was safe and significantly more efficacious than placebo for children and adolescents, with possible adverse effects on patient safety.

This essay examines the effects of commercialization on education with particular focus on corporatization of academic research. This trend results from a business model of education, which I identify as profit-based inquiry. I contrast profit-based inquiry with Nicholas Maxwell's conception of wisdom-based inquiry and conclude that the business model fails to achieve enduring value and results in a promotional or ideological emphasis rather than one that stresses the importance of critical rationalism. In order to make my case for this failure, I focus attention on the current state of commercialization in research of medicines.

In this Festschrift honoring the work of Timothy L. S. Sprigge, Sprigge summarizes his philosophy (a synthesis of absolute idealism, panpsychism, and utilitarianism), defends his position against criticism raised by philosophers in the preceding chapters of this volume, and offers in an addendum a proof for the existence of the Absolute, namely, a final and all-embracing Consciousness akin in many ways to Spinoza’s God. This defense of his philosophy consists mainly of responses to various points of criticism raised about his view of time, the relation between his metaphysics and ethics, panpsychism, the Absolute, and animal rights.

Scientific and ethical misconduct has increased at an alarming rate as a result of the privatization of knowledge. What began as an effort to stimulate entrepreneurship and increase discovery in biomedical research by strengthening the ties between industry and academics has led to an erosion of confidence in the reporting of research results. Inherent tensions between profit-directed inquiry and knowledge-directed inquiry are instantiated in psychopharmacology, especially in the co-option of academic activity to corporate objectives. The effects of these tensions are visible in research agendas, publication practices, postgraduate education, academic-industry partnerships and product promotion.

In this case study from litigation, we show how ghostwriting of clinical trial results can contribute to the manipulation of data to favor the study medication. Study 329 for paroxetine pediatric use was negative for efficacy and positive for harm. Yet the ghostwritten publication from this study concluded that paroxetine provided evidence of efficacy and safety and continues to be influential. Despite the role of named authors in revisions of the manuscript, the sponsor company remained in control of the message.

This article presents an overlooked case of research misconduct and violations of basic principles of medical and business ethics. When Bayer’s Cutter Laboratories realized that their blood products, Factor VIII and IX or antihemophiliac factor (AHF), were contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS

In this case study from litigation, I examine the origin of Monsanto-sponsored articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media that were designed to create doubt in critical evaluations of the herbicide, glyphosate. The role of ghostwriting and the use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveal that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medical journals and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation of the scientific literature.

In his magnum opus, Process and Reality, Alfred North Whitehead claims a special affinity to Oxford philosopher Francis Herbert Bradley. McHenry clarifies exactly how much of Whitehead's metaphysics is influenced by and accords with the main principles of Bradley's absolute idealism. He argues that many of Whitehead's doctrines cannot be understood without an adequate understanding of Bradley, in terms of both affinities and contrasts. He evaluates the arguments between them and explores several important connections with William James, Josiah Royce, George Santayana, Bertrand Russell, and Charles Hartshorne

While Whitehead and Russell’s collaboration on the foundations of mathematics ended with the publication of Principia Mathematica, both philosophers separately developed a philosophy of physics in the 1920s that was based on the revolutionary advances in modern physics. This essay explores the affinities and contrasts in Whitehead and Russell’s event ontology as a metaphysical foundation of physics and demonstrates the influence of Whitehead’s method of extensive abstraction on Russell’s metaphysics and epistemology.