The Finite Mind

Interesting follow-up article on the tempest-in-a-teapot issue of "The Infinite Mind" NPR radio program.

The article (by Jim Edwards) can be found here.

"Interesting" because he (refreshingly) calls it like he sees it -- specifically:

"Peter Pitts, a former FDA official and an executive at Manning, Selvage & Lee, a PR firm that represents pharmaceutical companies, informed producers of his financial ties to drug companies when he appeared as a guest on the show."

Here's what Bill Lichenstein (the producer of the Infinite Mind) had to say about that:

"… as executive producer of The Infinite Mind, I was not the producer of the episode in question. But with regard to our failure to disclose the pharmaceutical connections of one guest, Peter Pitts, Pitts was a guest on the show due to his being a former FDA official. We were not aware, nor was PBS’s NewsHour nor NPR, when they had Pitts on as a guest, of his pharmaceutical PR ties."

So, even though he wasn't aware he was aware.  Now that's an infinite mind!

Edwards continues:

That stands in contrast to Pitts’ own assertion, also on BNET Pharma, that he did disclose his ties to drug company clients: "When I was asked to appear on “The Infinite Mind,” I told the producer about all my affiliations — as I always do. … MS&L does no work at all for either GSK or Pfizer — and the work for Lilly is 100% in diabetes."

And Edwards ends the article as follows:

"Side note: There’s a slight “Rashomon” aspect as to whether Pitts disclosed his ties to MS&L and drug companies. It should not have mattered, however. Although Pitts was an FDA executive, he is now better known as a pro-industry voice and his clients are not a secret. The only reason Pitts is famous enough to make it onto radio shows is because he is tied to these companies. The mistake here was the show’s failure to do a simple internet search and disclose Pitts’ current job, not with whether Pitts mentioned his job prior to the interview. If you’ve ever met Pitts you’ll know that of all the things you can accuse him of, operating in a subtle, sub rosa fashion is not one of them."

Thanks for the clarification and (I think) the complement.

What remains curious and frustrating is that no one wants to discuss the actual content of the program.

Here is a link to my initial comments on the program (which also include a link to the actual program).