As a former psychologist who fastidiously dotted my i’s and crossed my t’s during my NIH-sponsored Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, and as a parent disturbed by our culture’s tendency to overmedicate, this story in the New York Times totally got my knickers in a twist.

According to the Times, an inquiry led by Iowa Republican Charles Grassley has revealed troubling practices by Massachusetts General Hospital child psychiatrist Joseph Biederman. Biederman is a major player in the movement to increase the use of risky antipsychotic medicines in children. Among other drug makers, he has close ties to Johnson & Johnson, maker of the antipsychotic medication Risperdal.

Here’s a summary of what’s been uncovered so far:

1. Conflict of interest. Biederman leaned heavily on Johnson & Johnson to fund a research center at MGH, with one of the primary goals being “to move forward the commercial goals of J & J.”

2. Financial (non)disclosure. Biederman has pocketed and not disclosed vast sums of money from the drug industry, to the tune of “at least $1.4 million in outside income from Johnson & Johnson and other makers of antipsychotic medicines.”

3. Data suppression. In 2002, Biederman and Johnson & Johnson presented data to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, but suppressed the numbers that didn’t fit their story. Specifically, placebos improved just as well as kids given Risperdal (the dependent measures weren’t indicated), but only the improvement following use of Risperdal was reported.

The relationship between for-profit companies and the medical community has long been complex, particularly related to issue #1 above. However, assuming all of this evidence holds, Biederman’s professional and financial greed are deplorable. From a research perspective, it’s behavior such as this that makes grant processes more complicated for applicants (by eventually adding layers of red tape to attempt to safeguard against such practices), and also makes the general public wary of researchers (I’m speaking from experience, as someone who worked with clinical populations during my postdoctoral fellowship at MGH).

And as a parent, I can’t help but feel even more skeptical about pharmaceutical research, which I realize – in blanket terms – is not fair to those working (I hope) for the greater good. One thing is for sure though; if my child was treated or included in a study by Biederman’s team, I’d sure as hell be knocking on his door for answers right now.

Image credit: Massachusetts General Hospital

Laura Bush is shopping a book proposal and I must admit that I’m intrigued. As a former White House intern who worked in Hillary Clinton’s office (albeit for a brief stint before moving to the Office of Political Affairs), the role and impact of the First Lady has long been a source of intrigue for me.

And in my most frustrated W. moments, I’ll admit that I’ve said on more than one occasion, “How the hell can this woman - who seems so sweet and reasonable - be married to that guy?!” But as the election grew closer and I fatigued of the negative campaigning, I also truly felt in my bones that a “we’re right, they’re wrong” political perspective was neither productive, nor reflective of the whole, complex picture. In those moments, I reminded myself that even if I felt strongly opposed to the political viewpoints of Bush, McCain, Palin, and others, jumping on the hate and anger bandwagon was good for no one. It helped to reflect on the personal element; that these people are human beings with families and friends who love them. That we don’t tend to see the positive along with the negative.

Hopefully Laura Bush’s memoir will cast some light on the personal (and assumed, beloved) side of W. As it stands, while I still feel disheartened over the mess he’s leaving behind (although to his credit, it’s not his mess alone…), the reality is that hearing day in, day out that a majority of the country hates you is bound to have a profound psychological impact on him. I may not understand him, but I’ll still send thoughts of peace and forgiveness in his direction.

Photo credit: Associated Press

Had it not been for my Twitter feed, the fuss over Twilight very well would have bypassed my filter (clearly, I’m the parent of a preschooler not a tween/teen). I did take a moment to get up to speed via Friday’s Boston Globe review, and laughed out loud over this capsule box, whose rating description includes “fervidly repressed adolescent sexuality.” In reality, the (far less salacious) rating descriptor is “some violence and a scene of sensuality.”