The Wall Street Journal reports:
A Boston University researcher who authored an article in the New England Journal of Medicine last year recommending the moderate use of tanning beds as a way to treat or avoid vitamin-D deficiency has received research funding from an organization funded and controlled by the tanning-bed industry.Posted by schwitz at April 18, 2008 07:30 AM | TrackBackThe link to researcher Michael Holick's work and the tanning industry wasn't made clear in the article. A note at the end of the article disclosed that Dr. Holick's research was funded, in part, by the UV Foundation. No information about the foundation was provided.
The nonprofit foundation, according to its Web site, is funded by the Indoor Tanning Association as well as the makers of tanning-bed equipment. The board of directors is composed entirely of tanning-bed-industry officials. Boston University was the top recipient of grants from the foundation from 2004 through 2006, the most recent three years of the group's Internal Revenue Service filings. In total, the university received $162,014 during that period.
On its Web site, the UV Foundation said it "has made a commitment of $150,000 over three years to Boston University, to continue the efforts of Dr. Michael Holick, a Vitamin D expert." The site said the foundation "is dedicated to exploring the positive effects of UV light and to increasing public awareness about those benefits."
Dr. Holick said in an interview that the money was an unrestricted grant that he used for vitamin-D research.
A report on the funding arrangement was to appear in Friday's edition of the Cancer Letter, a Washington-based trade publication. (See Cancer Letter story online.)
...
"I was surprised that the New England Journal, a very prestigious journal, would run the article this way," said Martin Weinstock, a Brown University dermatology professor. He said he was surprised the journal would run a piece by an industry-funded author.
$160,000 wouldn't go very far for research purposes. Any word on how much other funding there was and where it came from?
Posted by: Bill at April 18, 2008 02:58 PMI found this at the end of the article in question.
"Supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (M01RR00533 and AR36963) and the UV Foundation. Dr. Holick reports receiving honoraria from Merck, Eli Lilly, and Procter & Gamble and consulting fees from Quest Diagnostics,Amgen, Novartis, and Procter & Gamble. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. I thank Dr. Farhad Chimeh for his helpful review of an earlier version of this manuscript and Donna Gendron and Lorrie MacKay for their secretarial assistance."
Posted by: Bill at April 18, 2008 03:06 PMI am amused that Dr. Weinstock, a dermatologist, is objecting to less than 2% of the funding of a vitamin D medical researcher coming from the UV Foundation because of an association with indoor tanning advocates.
Does this dermatologist also object to AADA funding of medical studies designed to slam indoor tanning?
Does Dr. Weinstock object to the AADA's "seal of approval" being sold to sunscreen manufactuers for $10,000 per year for every branded bottle? If a sunscreen company offers 10 different sunscreen products, they pay $100,000 year. All the money collected goes to the AADA's anti-tanning propaganda campaigns.
When the AMA was caught doing this, it was called "payola" and kickbacks".
Dr. Weinstock should work on cleaning his own house. He might begin by washing his hands.
Posted by: Jim at April 19, 2008 01:35 PMMy policy on comments
I'm adopting the policy of a blog I admire: “Comments are great;
obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.” I also won’t post profanity, product pitches, or anything from anyone
who doesn’t list what appears to be an actual e-mail address.