Are legitimate nonprofits risking their reputations? Posted by Rob at 01/20/06 09:30 PM

This week the New York Times reported

A Congressional investigation of the money that drug companies give as supposed educational grants has found that the payments are growing rapidly and are sometimes steered by marketing executives to doctors and groups who push unapproved uses of drugs.

Senators Chuck Grassley (sponsor of key drug safety and transparency bills) and Max Baucus announced an investigation of drug company educational grants. According to their news release,

Grassley and Baucus are concerned that the companies may award the grants to favor individuals or organizations known to advocate the use of specific products. They are also concerned that the professional and patient advocacy groups, many of which develop treatment or practice guidelines, may come to rely on such grant funding to an extent that may compromise their independence.

Clearly nonprofit organizations feel the heat when it comes to finances. But Pharma's largesse no doubt comes with strings attached, if only implicitly. We've seen this before in a different context -- in legislative and political fights. Again and again in the heat of political fights drug company money flows, and the next thing you know nonprofit groups are taking unexpected policy positions.

In the Proposition 78/79 fight in California last November, the state NAACP opposed Prop 79, which was endorsed by most major consumer and health advocacy groups, and supported Prop 78, bankrolled by the drug industry. But this isn't a California NAACP problem exclusively.

Pharma -- with more money than God -- pulls out all the stops to thwart meaningful reform including developing astroturf groups and providing 'educational' grants to nonprofits.

It's worked pretty well for Pharma so far. But at what cost? The drug industry's once pristine reputation is in the tank. And legitimate nonprofit groups that rely on drug company money may soon find their objectivity called into question as well.

comments (0)