Cutting edge change in physician CME, or self-satirizing bamboozle?

Here’s an interesting piece in the NY Times on Stanford’s plans to develop a new continuing medical education program that is completely devoid of industry influence…except for the minor detail that it is underwritten entirely by Pfizer.

What do you think—“OK” if Pfizer really has no say in the content, or “not OK” because the conflict of interest is inherent in the Pfunding mechanism? (take our blog survey!)

Since this is an infection prevention blog, I’ll pose a parallel example specific to our field: what if Cepheid approached your infection prevention program and agreed to give you a million dollars to put together a year-long series of CME programs on MRSA control… strings attached, and you get to choose the speakers and content. Would you take it?


  1. I find it fascinating that not only is there a huge conflict of interest here but how self-righteous Stanford seems to be about the whole issue.


Post a Comment

Thanks for submitting your comment to the Controversies blog. To reduce spam, all comments will be reviewed by the blog moderator prior to publishing. However, all legitimate comments will be published, whether they agree with or oppose the content of the post.

Most Read Posts (Last 30 Days)