By Mihir Gupta

Most professors at Harvard College don’t face monetary pressure to advocate certain viewpoints. The scholars teaching our classes say what they truly believe, whether it is that Reagan-era economics are fundamentally sound, or that folklore and mythology are actually relevant. Elsewhere in the University, however, monetary considerations are increasingly jeopardizing academic freedom. The most prominent example is the situation at Harvard Medical School (HMS) that has prompted University officials to review the HMS conflict of interest policy and University-wide regulations governing faculty interaction with the private sector.

The issue at hand concerns the relationship of HMS faculty to the pharmaceutical industry, and the impact of that relationship on the education of HMS students. Students felt that their professors were no longer saying what they truly believed, but instead what they had been paid, directly or indirectly, to say. The result is a significant HMS student-led movement to separate classroom from pharmaceutical boardroom. The potential for conflicts of interest arises in a surprisingly large number of cases. Faculty laboratories, clinical research, and endowed chairs are often funded at least in part by a pharmaceutical company. It is therefore easy to see how these profit-seeking firms can dilute academic purity. For example, a professor who runs a successful clinical trial of Pfizer’s latest heart-disease drug and researches its effects in his/her laboratory might be inclined to promote the drug as a treatment for the condition in his/her cardiology class.

Many medical school faculty thus find themselves having to keep their professional affiliations, and even research results, out of the classroom. Indeed, many within the HMS student movement are advocating policies that would facilitate just such a separation: they call for greater limitations on the interactions that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to have with students, whether directly or indirectly through funding educational programs. The education of tomorrow’s doctors, argue the students, should be free of the bias inherent in the private sector. The movement has led to an HMS policy that requires all faculty and teachers to fully disclose their industry ties in the classroom – a move that no other medical school has yet taken.

However, HMS may not be leading the way in regulating conflicts of interest; in fact, the school may even be far behind the curve. A recent report by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) gave HMS an “F” grade on its conflict of interest policies. The medical school performed poorly in every single area of AMSA’s scorecard. For example, HMS has “no policy, or a policy unlikely to have a substantial effect on behavior” regarding the ability of private companies to offer gifts to physicians in Harvard’s hospitals that encourage them to prescribe a certain therapy. According to AMSA, the school has been unable to show that it promotes understanding of the impact that financial conflicts of interest make on physicians’ decision-making. Also, there is reportedly no oversight mechanism or explicit sanctions for noncompliance with current regulations.

These findings ought to concern both students and patients at Harvard-affiliated hospitals. The fact that other leading medical schools such as UPenn and Columbia received an “A” from AMSA suggests that medical schools do not necessarily face a tradeoff between institutional excellence and conflict of interest regulations. There are multiple factors explaining Harvard’s failing grade. A primary reason is that the University does not own any of its affiliate hospitals. This separation increases the difficulty of imposing or strengthening regulations, but does not make such action impossible. Harvard’s intransigence might thus be traced to an institutional culture of engaging too readily with pharmaceutical industry players: the previous dean of the medical school, for example, sat on multiple pharmaceutical company boards during his tenure, and several faculty are currently under Senate investigation for conflicts of interest.

The medical school’s response to student pressure, the AMSA report, and a flurry of media attention has been to convene a student-faculty committee under the current dean, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, to evaluate conflict of interest policy. The committee is still in session and actively soliciting input from medical students and faculty. Policy changes are expected to be implemented within the next few years, though no definite timeline has been set.

It should be noted, however, that the two sides observers expected to clash in the committee – those in favor of pharmaceutical interaction versus those opposed – agree more than they disagree. According to Vijay Yanamadala, a second year medical student at HMS and a 2007 graduate of Harvard College, “everyone agrees that there should be one-hundred percent transparency in all interactions between faculty and industry and an appropriate amount of regulation to ensure that transparency exists.” Where the two camps differ, he says, is “on the finer points of to what extent these interactions should be limited.” The media’s portrayal of the ideological clash, Yanamadala adds, puts things “in a much more dramatic light than they really are.”

While the medical school un-dramatically formulates the next generation of conflict of interest policies, it is worth considering what impact such policies could have on the education of medical students, and even undergraduates heading into the medical profession. Doing so requires recognition that pharmaceutical companies’ interactions with faculty in the research and clinical capacities do not necessarily translate into changes in classroom teaching, even though such interactions draw the most ire and earned Harvard the failing grade.

Many students are in fact calling for increased interaction between medical students and the pharmaceutical industry. Such students carefully distinguish from increased interaction between the industry and faculty, and indeed many support tighter regulations for such relations. They are instead calling for medical students to have greater exposure to industry during the first and second years of medical school, a time when students have virtually no opportunities to interact with firms. Yanamadala asserts that students begin interacting with industry representatives during clinical rotations in their third and fourth years of medical school, and will continue to do so for the rest of their careers. “Artificially limiting these sorts of interactions during the first and second years,” he says, “doesn’t really make sense.”

Yanamadala and others also advocate for continued interaction between faculty and industry, albeit with full transparency and proper regulations. The argument in favor of such interactions concerns a fact at the heart of the issue: that pharmaceutical companies produce the medicines that doctors, and ultimately patients, rely on. Yanamadala continues, “these companies have relied on interactions with doctors and with faculty whose expertise is transferred to industry in order to develop new technologies. Trying to restrict these interactions now would really jeopardize our future potential to get discoveries in academia out to the clinics for use in patients.”

The balancing act, of course, comes in regulating academic-industry interactions in ways that ensure they are ethical without stifling them altogether. However, it is also be vital to teach medical students, as early in their education as possible, how to recognize and deal with bias from all sources, including the academic literature. In judging how Harvard Medical School’s curriculum deals with bias in the context of pharmaceuticals, one need only look to the AMSA scorecard. In this area, HMS earned as low a grade as it did on every other metric on the AMSA scorecard, raising concerns about how well HMS will perform this vital task. To do so, it will need faculty to carefully guide students, especially at early stages. The school will thus have to combine increasing faculty regulations and responsibilities with an increased industry presence in the early stages of medical school.

The natural question that arises is what, if anything, will persuade leading academic institutions such as Harvard to change their conflict of interest policies. Given that pharmaceutical companies pour millions into academia (for the most part with good intentions and outcomes), the incentives seem stacked in favor of the industry. One might think that student pressure would work against this, and to an extent it certainly does. However, the students have few bargaining chips. Barring them making the radical move of withdrawing from medical school, they have few ways to exert pressure.

Also of concern is the fact that Harvard and other top medical schools will continue to attract talented pre-medical students to their ranks, regardless of their conflict of interest policies. This is primarily because pre-medical students almost never decide where to attend medical school based on such policies. Ravi Parikh ’09, who is currently deciding where he will attend medical school starting this fall, says he will make his decision based on “the strength of the education, the curriculum, accessibility of faculty, the school’s resources, and my familiarity with the school.” These factors are what most pre-medical students would (and should) consider.

However, most of these considerations – especially a school’s resources and the curriculum – are directly impacted by conflict of interest policies. The result is that pre-medical students, while making the right decision for their future, often reward the mistakes of their choice medical school’s past. No student should have to turn down a world-class education because of institutional misdemeanors, but what are pre-medical students to do when a school accumulates the resources it needs by subordinating its academic interests, and potentially its curriculum, to the private sector? The onus is thus on medical schools, especially those with high levels of funding and prestige, to self-regulate faculty-industry actions appropriately while giving students the exposure to industry necessary to make informed decisions in their clinical careers.

This is not to say that cases of misconduct in faculty-industry interactions are the exclusive fault of the medical schools themselves; the industry itself is as much to blame. Of course, the industry is an easy target: a 2005 Harris poll revealed that the public perceives the pharmaceutical industry as one of the least honest and trustworthy, better only than the likes of big oil and tobacco. The negative perception of pharmaceutical companies pervades much of academia as well, because pharmaceutical research is believed by some to be of lesser academically legitimacy.

Chemistry concentrator Jeffrey Holder ’09, however, sees things differently. After an internship in medicinal chemistry at Eli Lilly & Co., Holder believes that industry scientists, “are some of the best out there.” The chemists, he says, “have less than one-hundred days from the identification of a target molecule to devise a synthetic route with minimum steps to scale up its production to hundreds or thousands of kilograms of product.” Indeed, many of the best and brightest researchers head to industry precisely because of the scientific rigor that parallels academia in depth and competitiveness.

Another reason they go into industry, however, is to make an impact on human disease, often more directly than can be made in an academic research laboratory that is not part of a drug pipeline. Says Holder, “the way that the researchers in industry talk about the properties of a drug is always in terms of what the patient needs. It’s never just in terms of the science; it’s in terms of the patient.” Indeed, as Parikh notes, “without the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no such thing as medicine.” The implication with regards to medical school conflict of interest policies is that pharmaceutical companies, for all their shortcomings, still ought to be viewed as institutions that prioritize human well being as much as academic hospitals do – qualified, of course, by the profit motive inherent in their interactions that necessitates careful regulations. Viewing them as such will lead to the most balanced and productive policies, and guide efforts such as those at HMS – not towards excluding pharmaceutical companies entirely, but rather towards encouraging collaboration with them in ways that harness their desire and ability to make socially beneficial scientific discoveries.

The scope of these issues extends far beyond undergraduates who are headed to medical school or biochemical research. Their impact is broad insofar as doctors, whose patients will include the pre-med and non-pre-med alike, receive their education from institutions that have close ties with the private sector. Even the most prestigious of those institutions, such as Harvard Medical School, have much work to do with regards to regulating their faculty’s relationship with industry players; their approach will hopefully be based on a thorough understanding of the ways the companies interact with faculty and students, the necessity of those interactions, and the nature of the companies themselves.

By Betty Rosen

I remember February’s Knesset elections as a time of a held breath, a time when the mechanics of Israeli politics seemed to threaten the optimism of those, like me, who had been hopeful that real progress in the arena of Middle East peace was about to take place. Like so many other Americans, I saw Obama’s election as the inauguration of a worldwide wave of political successes for candidates oriented towards peace and negotiation.

The idea of holding a second set of elections due to a lack of ability to form a coalition government is inherently frightening to Americans. We cling to the view that once “the people have spoken,” their decision must not be adjusted – indeed, the political system should adjust to fit our needs and our desires. When I heard that factionalization might make a second round of elections necessary in Israel, I – and, I think, many Americans – balked. But even once it became clear that a new election would be held in Israel, I remained convinced that the America and the Middle East could together offer greater political opportunity and freedom to Arab Israelis and Palestinians.

Needless to say, the success of new Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beiteinu party did not fit with my vision of political change and cooperation. I was troubled by his party’s “no loyalty, no citizenship” platform. The phrase conjured up images of an arbitrary concept of “loyalty” – a term charged with implications of the suppression of dissenting voices – that Lieberman was attempting to translate into a fixed political framework. More worrisome still was Yisrael Beiteinu’s explicit plan to redraw the Green Line and strip many Arab-Israelis of their citizenship thereby creating a forced segregation between Israeli and Arab. Here was evidence that in Lieberman’s view, disloyal meant “Arab.” Lieberman’s labeling of Balad, Israel’s main Arab political party, as a “terrorist organization” was only the beginning of an effort to brand legitimate Arab political and social institutions as “terrorist.” Here was a platform that would spread the “Arab equals terrorist” ideology that many in the United States had been fighting so hard to combat since September 11. And here was a party that rejected wholesale the entire premise of idealistic Obamaist Americans like me: that cooperation can lead to peace by revealing every people as valuable, that the era of violence based on broad cultural generalizations was over. Instead of opening new paths to understanding, Lieberman was closing the already limited means to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

One reason Lieberman’s ascent to power is so troubling from an American perspective is his public demeanor. Lieberman’s comportment is entirely foreign to Americans, accustomed as we are to a political culture of politeness and diplomacy. Americans are no strangers to political scandals like the ongoing bribery investigation in which Lieberman is ensnared, and his assertions that the investigation is politically motivated are nothing new either. What is most disturbing is the coupling of this potential corruption with an anger and passion that is foreign to us. When Lieberman openly told Egyptian leader Mubarak to “go to hell,” he broke a cardinal rule of American politics.

If Lieberman’s only fault were behaving in a manner that conflicts with American political standards, however, he wouldn’t be dangerous. Even if he only dismissed United States intervention, we could (perhaps grudgingly) respect him as a proponent of Israeli autonomy. The problem is that Lieberman’s policies have grave ramifications, not just for the Middle East, but for the world. His rejection of American diplomatic involvement in the Arab-Israeli peace process is a rejection of a framework for peace that has been in existence since at least the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991. Granted, that framework has not yet provided a solution, but Lieberman proffers no alternative that represents any interests other than those of Israel. His announcement that the United States is not to make plans for peace efforts provides no outlet for Palestinian desires or concerns. Indeed, his only alternative to a totally unilateral agenda is an Israeli partnership with Russia. He apparently ignores the massive problems associated with making Russia Israel’s primary ally. In any event, this alliance seems designed for economic and military security, not diplomatic collaboration.

But it’s not just an American problem. The fact that Egypt’s chief negotiator visited Israel, but made no plans to meet with its Minister of Foreign Affairs, clearly indicates that Lieberman’s persona – let alone his policies – is a significant obstacle to the Middle East peace process. How can Israel move forward while Egypt’s Foreign Minister asserts that Lieberman “will not step on Egyptian soil”? This last statement has a slew of catastrophic implications. Unpopularity abroad is one thing, but an ability to neither access important channels of political discourse nor physically visit other nations is quite another.

When Lieberman directly engages with the peace process, the results are no less troubling. His shocking statement that Israel is not obligated to the Annapolis process is a refutation of the basic foundation of Arab-Israeli diplomacy. In making this statement, he sets off into the largely uncharted waters of official diplomatic efforts without American aid. It’s this kind of rashness that troubles me most. With Arab-Israeli relations strained disastrously by Gaza, the time for a two-state solution seems to be quickly running out, if it hasn’t already. At this crucial juncture, there is a great need for a foreign minister who can be decisive and careful. Lieberman is neither; he is in fact too temperamental to be either.

Thus, when he tries to back up his arguments with logic that ostensibly takes into account the interests of Arabs and Israelis, it’s hard to trust him. Some took his famous statement that concessions create more violence and actually hinder efforts at peace to be a signal that a cooperative peace really is his objective. But a proposal of negotiations in which neither party makes any concessions is entirely unrealistic. What it really translates to is at best a “separate but equal” doctrine and at worst an assertion of disproportionate Israeli power. And Lieberman approaches the whole process with a brutish intransigence that is downright scary.

It’s this intransigence that is the primary force in actually harming American interests. Too often, Americans think of the Middle East as a far-off region that has no effect on us beyond the implications of oil economics in the Gulf states. In fact, Lieberman’s insistence on calling negotiation for a two-state solution a “dead end” directly hinders American diplomatic efforts. It forces Washington to continuously reiterate its commitment to the two-state resolution in an attempt to defend its framework to both Yisrael-Beiteinu-supporting Israelis and disenchanted Arabs without giving America a chance to reconsider its own diplomatic position. Is a two-state solution still possible? Maybe not, and maybe Lieberman has a point there. However, his aggressive attitude and lack of feasible alternative, other than to exile Arab Israelis to a constructed ghetto state, gives Washington no opportunity to answer that question. Instead, America has to focus its energy on maintaining diplomatic strength in the context of the conflict rather than on examining fairer one-state alternatives.

So what can we do? First of all, we have to recognize which of our objections to Lieberman stem from uniquely American objections to his policies and persona and which come from the dangers he poses to Middle Eastern and international diplomacy. Second, our government has to take the time to consider and continually reevaluate its policy positions in the context of a constantly changing political scene in the Middle East. What concrete action we should take remains as unclear as ever. What is certain is that we must recognize the grave realities of Lieberman’s positions so that we can evaluate how best to act, because the time to act is not tomorrow, but now.

By Idriss Fofana

There are few worse insults in American politics than being deemed a “socialist.” Indeed, McCain’s supporters used it during the election campaign to paint Barack Obama as a dangerous radical leftist. And yet, in the American political lexicon, there exists a superlative to this term: a “European socialist.” For years, Europe has entertained a reputation as the standard bearer of leftist politics in the American imaginary. A quick review of world leaders today, however, draws a stunningly contradictory picture.

Indeed, if leftists around the world are looking anywhere for guidance, it is to America. Over the past five years, right wing governments have progressively taken hold of Western Europe. Today they control the European Union and every major Western European nation with the exception of the United Kingdom and Spain. Even then, conservatives threaten to take back power in the UK, leaving Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero Rodriguez as the lone European socialist in power. Is there an end in sight to this rising European conservatism? Unfortunately, that seems highly doubtful at the moment.

The new global dynamics grew evident during the recent debates over the global response to the economic crises. While the United States, with the support of Britain, has supported a strong calling on states to raise their stimulus budgets, European governments led by France and Germany have called for caution, preferring a more restrained approach. In a seemingly complete reversal of circumstances, it has been Europeans who have criticized the American and British irresponsible budget spending.

The European criticisms of Obama’s economic policies have shocked numerous commentators in the American press. At a recent news conference on the bank bailouts, one reporter asked the president if he was at all concerned that the traditionally leftist European governments had expressed reservation in the face of the astronomical figures of the American stimulus measures. Such questions, however, reveal an important misunderstanding of the current global political climate. While Europeans states continue to have more developed social welfare programs than the United States, the new European conservative governments are strongly averse to increasing state spending on such programs.

The new European conservatism has defined itself by co-opting the far right’s rhetoric on immigration and insecurity while calling for reduced tax burdens and state expenditures. Its emblematic figures are in a sense, Europe’s responses to George W. Bush: Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi. Both politicians have built their base on their charismatic characters and frank manners. However, they have elicited the ire of those on the left for their opulent lifestyles and outrageous statements. Berlusconi has caught the attention of the international press for his bizarre behavior towards the new American president, including a series of comments on Obama’s “tan.” Not to be outdone, Sarkozy was recently derided for insulting major world leaders, with the exception of Berlusconi of course, during a dinner with MPs. His targets included a “not very intelligent” Zapatero and an “inexperienced” Obama. Despite these gaffes, Sarkozy and Berlusconi’s opponents have failed to really invigorate the opposition, even in the face of the economic crisis. Indeed, both leaders have built their reputations as men of action, willing to reform their countries in order to break cycles of unemployment and slow economic growth. In these difficult times, European socialists could spare to learn a few lessons from their American counterparts.

While European leftists have grown weary of the notorious centrism of American leftists, the rightist criticism of the Obama administration indicate that the Democratic Party remains firmly anchored in progressive ideology. Unlike the Clinton administration’s strict adherence to free-market policies, President Obama has proved himself more willing to challenge conservative economic orthodoxy. In fact, Obama and Gordon Brown’s economic policies could offer interesting ideas to European socialists who have largely abandoned all economic questions to the right. Although the financial crisis has encouraged some progressive leaders to attack the meager responses of conservative governments, they have failed to offer coherent plans to address the crisis. Furthermore, Obama’s success should temper fears that alliances with centrists necessarily dilute the progressive message. While all coalitions require some amount of compromise, charismatic leadership can ensure that the leftist fundamentals of party platforms remain.

Of course there are some things that the American Democratic Party cannot offer to European left-wing parties. Europe’s debates over immigration and the ideological divides of leftist parties have to analog this side of the Atlantic. However, as with the economy, European progressives must propose a serious alternative to the right in matters of immigration and crime. Such responses must argue for an emphasis on reinvestment in social infrastructure rather than expansion of police powers. Nonetheless, if Europeans hope to put an end to the tiring antics of Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and the like, they must shed their pretensions to leftist orthodoxy and spare a look to the United States. It may have seemed unlikely even a few years ago but, America may just be the new progressive haven.

By Anna Yeung

The Great Equalizer

“It’s always a kick to see trust fund babies deal with sharing a room half the size of my single,” a friend once noted.

I first noticed the breadth of Harvard’s financial aid initiative through the housing lottery. Legacies end up bunking with first-generation college students, and globetrotting internationals with students from rural America. In the eyes of the the powers that be charge of sorting out rooming assignments, we are all one and the same. Dorm assignments constitute some of the first steps to accomplishing what I believe to be the real mission of Harvard—to take a group of promising kids from the full spectrum of backgrounds and in four years equip them all with the skills of any Harvard graduate.

As for our Puritan Heritage

Old John Harvard would roll in his grave if he heard of Debauchery, Mather Lather, or Sweet and Nasty. Harvard students make it a point to epitomize the term “Work Hard, Play Hard.” Before coming to Harvard, I expected the ingredients of a “good” Friday night for most Harvardians to involve finishing a math problem set three days early. In fact, I have found that the real ingredients are a decent iTunes mix amplified with a killer bass, plenty of eager freshmen in sketchy unlit rooms, and an ironic “You Must be 21 to Drink” sign hung in a lonely corner.

Contempt for our Puritan heritage was exactly the type of behavior that caused former Harvard President Increase Mather to leave us and aid in establishing Yale. Good riddance.

Life Beyond Ec10 and LifeSci

Yes, there’s more to life after Harvard than just Medical School and I-Banking. But explain that to 95% of the people who shake their heads in disbelief when I tell them that I am in neither LifeSci or Ec10. The confident 95% are sure that I’m completely wasting a Harvard education since I’m not headed in those two career tracks. For my part, I’m convinced the real tragedy is the guy in Annenberg who rattles off a well-meditated list of firms he intends on working for after graduation. Having endured an average thirteen years of schooling to get here, I would hope that you have some originality and potential in you. Why limit yourself to Wall Street when you can be anywhere else in the world?

For those of you that dare to defy expectations, I salute you. Stand strong in defending the practical applications of a History and Literature or Visual and Environmental Studies degree in the real world to anyone and everyone.

The Weight of the H-Bomb

Come on, admit it, we’ve all tried using it to see the effect. But it’s not just about the name of the institution. It’s also the people that make up the name. It’s a well established fact that using the H-Bomb itself is pretentious and makes you look like an arrogant prick. Instead, students will use the diluted derivatives of it which may be equally or even more pretentious, dropping lines like “I played on the same B-ball court as Obama” or “Thoreau lived in my building before he moved to his pond”. That said, walking through the Yard on a rare sunny day, it’s those same lines that remind me of how blessed I am to be here and inspire me to keep typing at 4am in Lamont try to live up to the legacies of fellow Harvardians.

So long as I survive the next three years.

By Joe Hodgkin

BOSTON – Since President Barack Obama took the oath of office in January and lifted restrictions on stem-cell research, the nation’s laboratories have been moving forward apace with their micropipette-ready projects. According to a scientist who has spoken on conditions of anonymity, the first batch of Scalopus anthropomorphus, a mole-human chimera formed by exposure of human stem-cells to the epigenetic conditions of a mole embryo, have already reached maturity.

The animals are reportedly two feet tall, obese, and short-sighted. Their abilities to tunnel and carry small semi-automatic weapons make them ideal for battling internal threats. This reporter could not find any conformation for the pervasive rumor that the first generation of mole people has struck an alliance with the giant albino sewer alligators.

Although the government has not yet officially confirmed the existence of the mole people, debate has begun among scholars of constitutional law about the legality of a specialized internal militia of humanoids. Comparisons have been drawn to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s secret international military hit-squad.

Some responses from influential figures have been positive. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has suggested that the mole people could be put to use tracking UFOs. However, the tone of the news media has been much harsher. Fox News reporters have repeatedly claimed that the mole people answer only to Bill Ayers’ orders and will be used to enforce the new tax code.

Political analysts have been hard-pressed trying to guess where the mole people fit into President Obama’s agenda. The most prominent explanation has been offered by Jerome Corsi (Unfit for Command, The Obama Nation) who in an op-ed column of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch offered a close-reading of a “prophetic passage” in The Audacity of Hope.