Abstract
To the Editor
Christopher Ryan and Anthony Harris (2013) suggest hidden conflicts of interest (COI) were present in my critique of Ian Hickie’s review of the Servier drug agomelatine (Carroll, 2011; Hickie and Rogers, 2011). One should ask why they acted as stalking horses for Hickie himself: the effect of their letter is to distract attention from the weakness of Hickie’s reply to his critics in the pages of The Lancet (Hickie and Rogers, 2012).
Their perfervid scrutinizing of the Internet for evidence of undisclosed COI is simplistic. For the record, I have no COI relevant to the agomelatine debate in The Lancet. Ryan and Harris unearthed that in a paper discussing the endocrinology of depression I had disclosed a consultation with AstraZeneca about an endocrine issue. That is not a relevant competing interest in the current matter.
Ryan and Harris also suggest that I am influenced by undisclosed ‘intellectual passion’ because I am a blogger. That suggestion is idle speculation. I am indeed an occasional blogger on issues of professional ethics. I publish essays just a few times a year on the Health Care Renewal weblog, often on topics unrelated to ‘the effects of pharma influence on academic psychiatry’ [sic]. I am an equal opportunity critic and I can understand the discomfort of those I criticize, now including Ryan and Harris. Their insinuation of hidden bias caused by ‘intellectual passion’ is a disingenuous diversion from the real issues surrounding the Hickie–Rogers review.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of interest
The author reports no conflicts of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of the paper.