The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics? | Journal of Medical Ethics

Subscribe
Log In More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
Basket
Search More

Search for this keyword

Advanced search

Close More
Main menu

Latest content

Current issue

Archive

Authors

About

JME Commentaries
Subscribe
Log in More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
BMJ Journals

Responses

The Olivieri symposium

The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics?

Free

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

No

Please describe the competing interests

PLEASE NOTE:

A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ Privacy Notice *

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

United we gain, divided we lose: A response to ‘The Olivieri symposium’.
Dr V Mohanan Nair
Published on: 22 April 2004

Published on: 22 April 2004
United we gain, divided we lose: A response to ‘The Olivieri symposium’.
- Dr V Mohanan Nair, Public Health Physician, faculty and researcher <br> Kerala Health Services, India
Dear Editor
Professor F. Baylis in her symposium on the ‘Olivieri debacle’ examines a highly debated controversy.[1]
I would like to look at the developments from a different angle. Olivieri debacle, to me, is an example of a crisis where academia, researchers and the bioethicists worked in unison for a common noble cause.
The situation that the author tries to portray as "a proud moment in time...
Show More

Dear Editor
Professor F. Baylis in her symposium on the ‘Olivieri debacle’ examines a highly debated controversy.[1]
I would like to look at the developments from a different angle. Olivieri debacle, to me, is an example of a crisis where academia, researchers and the bioethicists worked in unison for a common noble cause.
The situation that the author tries to portray as "a proud moment in time for Canadian bioethics" may not look very proud to everyone as evidenced in the editor’s note about the "'perils of heroism' which stem from the narcissistic striving for personal glory".[2] Earlier discourses in this subject have always reminded me that the researchers should be very careful in signing research agreements with sponsors. Subsequent developments in this case have undoubtedly shown that the bioethics community did rise to the occasion and act towards placing in position suitable mechanisms to safeguard researchers from signing research contracts with objectionable clauses.[3]
Mary Rowel’s responses to the symposium connote that her opinions were distorted.[4] The author states that Ms Rowell initially refused to write an article for the symposium and later her article "prompted her to write about her experiences".[5] I personally hold that individuals should not be compelled to speak aloud or write on something that they do not want to. Many had provided directions to prevent such disasters in future [6,7] and even the supporters of whistle-blowers have presented well balanced views on this issue.[8] Being a student and researcher in bioethics, I would like to hear more future directions from the learned teachers, including the author.
The unhealthy influence of industry on biomedical research and the lassitude and intentional inactivity of universities and academic institutions to support researchers with genuine causes are really worrisome. More worrisome is the creation of any schism within the academic community in an era where collective action can do a lot to safeguard the scientific and ethical principles of biomedical research. As a bioethics student from a non-industrialized country, I feel that the bioethics community in Canada has acted realizing the full implications of the case and worked towards developing safety mechanisms to safeguard from similar disasters in future. In India, we suffered a lot due to the policy of ‘divide and rule’ during the historic independent struggles and learned the lesson to stand together in moments of crisis. The Olivieri debacle once again showed the need for everyone including academia, researchers and the bioethicists working together for a common cause.
References
1. Baylis F. The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics? Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30: 44-49.
2. Savulescu J. Editor’s note: How can we make a difference? The perils of heroism. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30:52.
3. Ferris L.E, Singer P.A, Naylor C.D. Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri/ Apotex affair in Toronto. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30: 25-29.
4. Rowell M. The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics? A reply. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30:50.
5. Baylis F. Responses to Mary Rowell. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30:51-52.
6. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis - learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30: 8-24.
7. Du Val G. Institutional ethics review of clinical study agreements. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 30: 30-34.
8. Rhodes R, Strain JJ. Whistle blowing in academic medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004; 35-39 & Faunce T, Bolsin S, Chan W-P. Supporting whistle blowers in academic medicine: training and respecting courage of professional conscience. Journal of Medical Ethics 2004;30: 40 -43.
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top