Marisa Peryer

When Yale School of Medicine Dean Robert Alpern submitted a 2017 study for publication — based on research examining the effectiveness of a new treatment by the pharmaceutical company Tricida, Inc. — he failed to reveal a crucial fact: He served on the company’s board of directors and owned shares of its stock, according to a Saturday New York Times and ProPublica joint report.

The study, which examined a chronic kidney disease therapy, was also funded by Tricida. Alpern was the senior author of the research article.

But his ties to the biomedical industry are not limited to Tricida. Alpern has served on the board of directors for the pharmaceutical companies AbbVie and Abbott Laboratories since 2013 and 2008, respectively. And these companies made a combined total payment of over $500,000 to Alpern during the 2017 fiscal year. The payments included $194,164 for consulting, $185,630 for travel and lodging as well as $25,291 for food and beverages, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which logs industry payments to physicians.

“The university encourages its faculty to seek and participate in sponsored research, to consult widely, and to engage in other activities that may benefit not only the participants but also the university itself, and the larger public,” Yale spokeswoman Karen Peart wrote in an email to the News. “All faculty members are required to follow stringent policies governing the relationships of faculty with outside entities, including the pharmaceutical industry.”

Peart noted that the University institutes these policies to preserve the independence of faculty and mitigate bias in research activities, clinical decision-making and educational programs. She added that he would recuse himself from making decisions that affect AbbVie.

In an email to the News, Alpern said that his board positions at biomedical companies are annually reported to the University.

He also underscored the importance of top physicians and scientists advising biomedical companies.

“We provide a perspective from the viewpoint of physicians, scientists, medical schools, hospitals, and most importantly patients,” Alpern wrote in the email. “I would also add that my experiences on the boards have allowed me to gain knowledge that is helpful in my role as dean.”

Alpern noted that many medical school deans –– often from top schools –– also serve on the corporate boards of biomedical companies.

For example, University of Michigan Medical School Dean Marschall S. Runge serves as a director for the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Runge received nearly $300,000 from the company in 2017.

But not all industry payments amount to large sums. In 2017, Columbia’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Dean Lee Goldman ’69 MED ’73 SPH ’73 received $24 from the pharmaceutical company Allergan, Inc. And in 2016, Harvard Medical School Dean George Q. Daley received $77 from the biotechnology company Celgene Corporation. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not report any industry payments to Daley during 2017.

Alpern was appointed as dean of the medical school in 2004.

Marisa Peryer | marisa.peryer@yale.edu .

  • http://www.earn.948.ooo/ earn

    增大壮阳!丰乳缩阴!泡妞把妹!房中秘术!

    够硬!男人的把柄才能堵住女人的漏洞!

    什么不用干,不用拉下线,坐收二百万!

    注册网址:

    earn.948.ooo

    吊炸天!

  • YaleGradreadingYDN

    So…what’s the story again? He sits on the Board of a public company that files public documents that detail his compensation from the Company. You don’t have to go to some hard-to-maneuver CMS website to find it, the Company literally tells the world this information. There is even more in the public realm because he is an insider and has to file. You will see that he has 28,165 shares of Abbott and 23,688 shares of AbbVie. It took me less than the time to eat half my sandwich to find that.

    Also, the FDA runs their own process, own review of results, and ultimately approves the drug after years of trials.

    I don’t understand why this is here, it is a headline grab article that offers nothing. You didn’t “solve the case,” you are making statements that are public knowledge and not close to being an offense.

    • david

      The millions who are living with devastating adverse effects caused by one medication or another understand full well the conflict of interest between the pharmaceutical industry and objective medical treatment, let alone objective science. Drug trials are paid for by pharmaceutical companies: the raw data is “proprietary,” so who knows? What we do know is that studies funded by drug companies are five times more likely to find results favorable to the drug. After all, the purpose of the trials is to take the drug to the F.D.A., which gets a huge amount of money from the drug companies’ paying them to evaluate their drug, and on it goes. Any money from the pharmaceutical industry that gets into the educational system, the regulatory system, the legal system (like the 2011 and 2013 Supreme Court cases that made it virtually impossible to litigate against generic drug companies) corrupts and corrodes our health care.

      Read Overdo$ed America for a cogent and infuriating description of what drug money does. (Or just read about the marketing of OxyContin and understand that this is how pretty much all drugs are marketed–profit before anything.) In 2004, the editors of 12 of the top medical journals wrote an editorial stating that because of industry money, the articles in their journals could not be trusted. This is public knowledge, and so what? The fact that something is available for the public to know doesn’t, of course, mean that it’s known by anyone at all. In fact, I’ll bet that not even one in a thousand people in New Haven “know” the headline of this article.