John LaMattina, a Forbes columnist, criticized a 2012 press release by Penn about a research publication from the Perelman School of Medicine in his column on Jan. 11.
The headline read, “University of Pennsylvania Should Rethink Over-Hyped Press Releases.” But Penn faculty claim that LaMattina has conflicts of interest that influenced his position.
The May 2012 press release from the medical school linked certain anti-inflammatory drugs to increased cardiovascular risk, including anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex, which is manufactured by Pfizer. Pfizer sponsored a clinical trial that was presented in November, showing that the risks of Celebrex were no higher than generic ibuprofen and naproxen.
LaMattina is a former president of Pfizer Global Research and Development. He wrote in his column that, “one might expect that Penn might offer a sort of retraction for the now seemingly outlandish views that were made in its ‘rah-rah’ press release.” He went on to attack both the Penn study on the effects of Celebrex on cardiovascular health and the decision to create a press release based on the study.
Garret FitzGerald, a professor at Penn Medicine who was named in the Forbes column and led the Penn study in question, said he had “no desire to engage” in discussing the column, because he already published a full rebuttal of the Pfizer study in an editorial in the scientific journal Circulation. FitzGerald’s criticisms noted that the Pfizer study did not compare equal doses of Celebrex and the generic drugs.
Another Penn researcher and cardiologist, Tilo Grosser, clarified that Penn’s public relations office, which published the press release, has experts in communicating medical and research data to the public. He also agreed with FitzGerald’s rebuttal to the Pfizer study, and stood by the research on Celebrex.
“The Forbes contributor was a Pfizer person, and for Pfizer this trial was immensely important because they want Celebrex to go over the counter,” he said. “[Pfizer’s] goal was to prove that their drug has a similar rate of side effects [as other drugs]. They ended up comparing apples to pears by not using equal doses.”
Grosser also discussed the more difficult ethical questions behind broad publication of scientific research, as well as how the media handles such research.
“I think it comes down to having journalists who take the time, and have the training, to understand what was done and make a good judgement call,” Grosser said. “Together with their colleagues and their news organization [they should decide] whether it should be published and commented on or whether it shouldn’t be published.”
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate