Talk:Joseph Biederman

The entire entry is basically praising Biederman. There is hardly any mention of the controversy surrounding bipolar diagnoses in children or the investigation he is currently under for taking money from pharmaceutical companies and not reporting it. MaryTormey (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)My name is Mary Tormey I have been forced to take Risperdal and I think it would be wrong to give that drug to anyone, let alone a child. I would like to see more information about the drugs he got approved to treat children and the children who have suffered and died because of these drugs. Also I would like to see some mention of the fact that he tested Risperdal, a drug with a black box warning on children and that he received a great deal of money from companies marketing the drugs he promoted. Also he may have further implicated himself by reporting that money only after he got caught.MaryTormey (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you find some sources for this info, like news paper articles or jounal articles, then we should add this info in.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

More critical refs to include

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237 MaxPont (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that when PBS' Frontline asked to interview him on their The Medicated Child program, he refused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a close look at this

Most of the page lists verifiable facts about Joseph Biederman. The criticism section is potentially libelous. It is dangerous to include congressional "charges" in a biography when Biederman has not been found guilty of any of these charges by due process. I checked the additional critical reference recommended and it is just another rehash of the congressional "charges." My preference is that Wikipedia not include unsubstantiated "charges" in biographies. Although being "charged" by a congressional investigator seems to have some face validity, it is important to remember that Congressmen and women are not subject to libel laws. Thus, they can say what they want with impunity to score political points. Note also that there is a Wiki about Bipolar disorder in children, which addresses the controversy. Charles.hamilton95 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a charge as much as it is the fact that he was caught receiving at least 1.6 million USDs from the very drug companies whose drugs he was promoting. It's not as if he was going to go to prison over it, it's just a conflict of interest for somebody considered to be doing scientific research. 24.236.234.23 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/08conflict.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 01:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

Biedermann is often (but not always) an Ashkenazi Jewish surname. If Joseph Biederman is Jewish or has Jewish ancestry, it should be mentioned in the article. 2601:8C:4581:1150:31A3:755B:44B6:FF04 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need you spreading antisemtism remarks 211.30.147.97 (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hagiography

Article is a mess. Much of it reads like hagiography and downplays the still highly controversial nature of his work and relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. Many unnecessary citations and simply too much information. Much of it appears to have been written by Stephen Faraone, a former collaborator. I will try to piece something together from contemporary histories of psychiatry and see what can be kept. Feline negativity (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor's Reply

In a recent reversal of edits, @Feline negativity expressed concerns around edits that revamped claims surrounding potential conflicts of interest (COIs).

I am concerned that Professor Biederman's page is not an accurate reflection of his biography and that it is being used to slander his reputation. For example, the article stated:

"In 2008, Senator Chuck Grassley, undertook an investigation that alleged that Joseph Biederman had violated federal regulations in addition to Harvard Medical School's and Massachusetts General Hospital's research rules by receiving money from the pharmaceutical companies."

To accept allegations over the documented, scientifically peer-reviewed consensus perspective of potential COIs is problematic.

The journalist documentary cited is indeed politically biased hence its removal; for it claims "...the debate over medicating [ADHD] [in] children continues to grow" and emphasises the risks of "big pharma", whatever that may mean. There is, in fact, no such debate in the scientific community and the idea of "big pharma" is objectively false and used exclusively by propagandists. This surely does not correspond to the requirements of a reputable source.

Overall, no credible evidence is offered to support many of the documentary's assertions though they are presented as undeniable facts based solely on citations of politically motivated editorials and highly biased trade books. Fortunately, we have reached a state in the mental health sciences where sufficient data are available on disorders like ADHD such that all ideas about it no longer get prizes. Theories and hypotheses about the origins of ADHD must have consequences to be useful; that is, they must be testable against the sizeable and increasing body of scientific findings available on it for consistency with that database. When this is done, the vague pontifications of these critics do not square with the available data.

For their hypothesis asserts that there is nothing unusual about these children in any way—it is all to be found in parental child-rearing and some amorphous concept called “cultural anxiety” prevalent in the industrialised or western world. Such views are at worst a continuation of the past 50 years of parent bashing stemming from psychoanalytic, radical behavioural, and pop-psychology perspectives on children’s mental disorders (see Faraone et al., 2021; Pinker, 2002 for discussions). These are historical dead ends in understanding child psychopathology. At best their hypothesis is a form of scientific buck-passing for it can generate no useful understanding of disorders, predictions that can drive informative programmatic research, or insights into effective treatments. All one need do, apparently, is engage with the interpersonal realities of human life using the untested methods of Peter Breggin.

I also disagree about removing Dr. Biederman's accomplishments. I think there are too many to mention here, but they collectively have left an indelible body of work impacting clinicians, researchers, and countless patients and their families.

To sum, I added scientific material to Prof. Biederman's disclosure statement consistent with Wikipedia's biography guidelines and hope I have addressed your concerns. If you disagree with what I have written, please don't replace everything again. Let's have a discussion to see what is reasonable. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus in the academic history of medicine appears to be that Biederman took significant sums of money from the pharmaceutical industry and that this affected his research and research priorities.

Yes, there is such a thing as the pharmaceutical industry, and it exerts real and significant influence on medical research and culture as a whole in the West. This is very well-documented, and is not the same as saying a shadowy "Big Pharma" cabal is doing this or that.

Obituaries by colleagues appreciative of his research contributions are naturally not going to speak ill of the dead. Obituaries, like for instance book reviews, are moreover typically not peer-reviewed, and published at the discretion of the editor. The citations you provide don't seem to substantively refute the allegations of pharmaceutical industry influence.

Much of his work was and continues to be controversial, especially outside of America. But of course I have no objection to including information about his research contributions - I only object to attempting to whitewash or sanitize his page. Feline negativity (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

As I cited, the global scientific consensus is in fact that Prof. Biederman has no such conflicts of interest claimed repeatedly cite on this article. See the accompanying disclosure statement of potential COIs. In my opinion and according to Wikipedia guidelines, scientific consensus is one - if not the - most reputable sources to be used for substantiation.

Also, I cited even more recent peer-reviewed science attesting Biederman's potential COIs (e.g. Woodward et al., 2023). Thus, the disclosure I added, which you deleted, warrants reinclusion. This is due to peer-reviewed scientific studies being substantially more reputable than journalist documentaries and newspaper/trade media articles. For further details, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources:

E.g. "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

You misrepresented me: I do not dispute the existence of the pharmaceutical industry as you imply, but the idea of "big pharma" which, at least contextually, is meaningless, unprofessional and objectively wrong.

You claim that this "is not the same as saying a shadowy "Big Pharma" cabal is doing this or that". Contrarily, the documentary, in fact, does explicitly assert that, hence my quote.

It is a bit disheartening to see the ease with which you claim the pharmaceutical industry has significant influence on the whole of medical research, so I can rightly ask “How would you know?” What specific standards or criteria have they applied to the wealth of scientific literature on ADHD that permit such a conspiratorial conclusion? Specifically, just how do you distinguish valid disorders from mere problems in living, the consequences of “cultural anxiety,” or parents “loaded with anxiety” in their child-rearing? I provided the International Consensus Statement and European Consensus Statement summations of thousands of references to peer-reviewed, scientific studies that attest to this not being the case—I could have cited five times as much. Medical research and decisions are informed by international guidelines, regulations, expert consensus, and independent peer-reviewed studies, not pharma companies. You can site but three press-books (not research) and a journalist documentry to claim to raise issues about the integrity of medical science and the validity of ADHD nd its treatment.

Additionally, please look at the methodology and disclosure statements accompanying medical research articles to see that they are primarily supported either by federal government research grants or grants from foundations or the medical centre or university itself. So the criticism of yours does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. Replication of research findings is a major part of scientific progress and if results of a study are biased by the funding source, then they won’t survive replication.

Lastly, I am glad you do not object to information about his research contributions. The reason why I raised that is due to your previous post, expressing concerns about the research contributions Prof. Stephen Faraone had added. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No such "global scientific consensus" exists. Either Biederman did, for instance, solicit from Johnson & Johnson $700,000 to establish at Harvard/MGH a pediatric psychopharmacology research center, the explicit mission of which was to "move forward the commercial interests of J&J," or he did not. This is a question of simple historical facts (what Scull calls "uncontroverted evidence"). These facts were reported on by the most respected media outlets in the US - The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed books by the leading historians of psychiatry. Not, in other words, tabloids or unreliable sources. I highly encourage you to solicit the opinions of other editors on this.

As regards the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical research - it's an unfortunate reality. A symbiotic relationship exists between industry and physicians, in which research funding, controlled by industry, advances the careers of physicians, who in turn advance the interests of industry. This relationship has been extensively documented - the references I provide above are exemplary, as there are many more, but they are useful overviews. They have been authored by well-established experts - Dumit, Healy, and Shorter - and published by three of the top academic presses. Chapters 8-14 of Shorter are particularly eye-opening if you are unfamiliar with this phenomenon. Feline negativity (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

r.e. consensus: This is the insistence of a wrong argument as indicated by criticism (e.g. International Consensus Statement).

See the global scientific consensus disclosure of potential COIs as repeatedly cited:

"J.B. is currently receiving research support from the following sources: AACAP, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Food & Drug Administration, Genentech, Headspace Inc., NIDA, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche TCRC Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Takeda/Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc., Tris, and NIH. Dr. Biederman's program has received departmental royalties from a copyrighted rating scale used for ADHD diagnoses, paid by Biomarin, Bracket Global, Cogstate, Ingenix, Medavent Prophase, Shire, Sunovion, and Theravance; these royalties were paid to the Department of Psychiatry at MGH. In 2020: Through MGH corporate licensing, Dr. Biederman has a US Patent (#14/027,676) for a non-stimulant treatment for ADHD, a US Patent (#10,245,271 B2) on a treatment of impaired cognitive flexibility, and a patent pending (#61/233,686) on a method to prevent stimulant abuse. He receives honoraria from the MGH Psychiatry Academy for tuition-funded CME courses. In 2019, Dr. Biederman was a consultant for Akili, Avekshan, Jazz Pharma, and Shire/Takeda. He received research support from Lundbeck AS and Neurocentria Inc. Through MGH CTNI, he participated in a scientific advisory board for Supernus."

Evidently, experts are in agreement globally that there are no such conflicts of interest allegations claim on this article (e.g. Biderman violating federal regulations, receiving excessively large sums of money from Johnson and Johnson and/or being very controversial) or it would have been indicated in the peer-reviewed potential COIs publicised. This, in addition to other peer-reviewed papers, is considered substantially more reliable than existing references according to Wikipedia guidelines mentioned above.

Additionally, when following your logic of newspapers such as the New York Times being profoundly reliable - then virtually the whole of psychiatry is flawed and ADHD is not a valid diagnosis necessitating that the entire ADHD article is revamped to reflect this over the global scientific consensus. That would certainly be ridiculous.

If you are unable to provide countering evidence, I would ask you to abstain from your claim - or at least handle criticism more respectfully by not ignoring it.

r.e. pharmaceutical industry: I disagree. But I do not intend to enter into further dialogue as it is unlikely to lead to consensus. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Димитрий Улянов Иванов Conflicts of interest statements are declarations on honor made by the researcher themselves. They are not typically peer-reviewed, and the presence of a COI statement from one author on a "consensus" article does not actually mean that every author of the article agrees with it, or has even seen it! This is reflected in the fact that they do not form part of the main body of the article, and are subject only to editorial discretion. Researchers frequently fail to actually declare all relevant conflicts of interest.

A consensus among ADHD scholars regarding Biederman's COIs, which, I must emphasize, does not exist, as you appear to have misunderstood the nature of a COI statement, is anyways irrelevant, because it is a question of what the historical record actually shows. According to leading media outlets and historians of psychiatry, court documents show that Joseph Biederman did in fact receive seven hundred thousand dollars to set up a research center with the explicit goal of advancing the commercial interests of a pharmaceutical company. This is not a scientific fact but a historical fact - something that happened, documented as part of the historical record. Another example of a historical fact would be that Biederman was born in 1947. Now, the "global consensus statement" doesn't say anything about Biederman being born in 1947. This doesn't mean that he wasn't - you know he was because it was reported in a newspaper and recorded by historians. For historical facts, reliable newspapers and history books are excellent sources. The opinions of his colleagues on this particular historical fact have no bearing on its factuality.

Importantly, the COI statement on the "consensus statement" declares the research funding he was currently receiving or had recently received at the time of publication. It does not mention past research funding, let alone a controversy over funding nearly two decades old. Because it focuses on current conflicts of interest, or those within the last 3 years (which are in their own right substantial), it should not be used to indicate that Biederman never in the past had other conflicts of interest.

I would again very much encourage you to solicit the opinions of other editors, who I think will be fairly clear about this. Feline negativity (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The International Consensus Statement concluded: "The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 403 [experts] who have read this document and agree with its contents" in addition to the (80?) authors and that "Expert scrutiny was provided by a project Steering Committee".

The disclosure statement is an explicit part (and section) of the manuscript/consensus statement. If they didn't peer-review one particular section, the ICS would have concluded "the contents, except for example section, are endorsed"...

Yet that is what you tried to assert. Thus, where I stand accused of misinterpreting the global scientific consensus, it it yourself who has been caught doing so.

Second, the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest include the past tense (e.g. "Dr. Biederman was a consultant for Akili, Avekshan, Jazz Pharma, and Shire/Takeda") which are also not entirely recent at all. So that disproves your claim that "it does not mention past research funding, let alone"... So, true to pattern, you once again commit a strawman.

A peer-reviewed disclosure of potential COIs necessarily would have to specify incidences of serious COIs such as federal violations and receiving extraordinary/excessive sums of money both in relation to the industry due to their relevance, for showcasing the integrity of the global scientific consensus as standardised in all ADHD International Consensus Statements so far (e.g. Barkley et al., 2002), and importance, as is self-evident in the term COI. The disclosure in fact, does not state that it only reports potential COIs from x years as you are claiming.

So it is evident your claims lie on unjustified assumptions and narratives you have invented out of thin air, contradicting the statement's conclusions, in order to discredit the global scientific consensus statement.

Newspapers are not reliable due to them being sensational, egregious and not peer-reviewed by scientists in the field, thus making them susceptible to bias in reporting potential COIs. Although I cannot track it down now, Dr. Faraone has shown that claims on Biederman receiving from Johnson & Johnson large sums is wrong as that income was directed to the medical centre or university (as I recall) and not Biederman. In my experience of scrutinising COI reports in the trade media, this form of dishonesty is certainly not rare in the trade media by any means. Once more, peer-reviewed papers and specifically global scientific consensus is considered the most reputable citable source on Wikipedia.

Precisely why these International Consensus Statements are created (Barkley et al., 2002; 2004, Faraone et al., 2021): to confront misrepresentations and stigma in the popular media in regards to both ADHD and innuendo that maligns the integrity of scientists studying the disorder (e.g. false COI accusations).

But I don’t think it’s an argument worth pursuing any further as it will just take valuable time away from other projects and is unlikely to be convincing. The debate here could go on for quite awhile longer. And One could write an extensive review on these issues and I certainly dont have the time or interest in doing so. So, at least for now, I will just leave it at the comments I have provided already. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

You are correct that the COI statement mentions past payments. However, these are from 2019. The article is from 2021. The standard used by Elsevier, the publisher of Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, and by most other medical journals (see ICMJE recommendations) for disclosing conflicts of interest is 3 years. So conflicts older than three years, of which Biederman had many, were not declared on that article. There is an easy way to show this: in an older article, from JAMA in 2004, Biederman declares conflicts of interest with a number of firms, such as Janssen and Eli Lilly (manufacturers of atypical antipsychotics), which he does not mention at all in the 2021 article! So clearly the 2021 article does not provide a comprehensive overview of Biederman's involvement with the pharmaceutical industry. It is anyways absurd to think that all of the dozens of authors on the 2021 article examined each others' COIs and formed a consensus on each of them: COIs are self-reported, the system relies on authors being honest. Biederman seems to have complied with the journal policy here - it just doesn't show us the full story, that's all.

You are also correct in saying that Biederman didn't personally pocket $700,000 from J&J. However, the article does not say that he did. The way the political economy of knowledge in medicine works is via research funding just like this - it's what keeps scientists' careers going, or even makes them academic stars, but unfortunately it can often bias them or put them in situations of moral hazard. This may have happened in the case of Biederman's research on pediatric bipolar disorder, which was conducted while he was receiving large amounts of both research and personal funding from atypical antipsychotic manufacturers attempting to expand the market for their drugs, which is why it is important that the page mention his conflicts of interest.

According to WP:NYTIMES, The New York Times is a reliable source for non-medical claims - and according to WP:Biomedical information, what we are discussing is not "medical information" for which anything other than generally reliable sources is needed. And again, this information about Biederman is also given in peer-reviewed books published by highly-respected historians. This isn't something that The New York Times just made up!

Please don't feel obliged to reply - but I hope this will be helpful for you or possibly other editors. Feline negativity (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hope so too. Thanks for the discussion. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)