If we do not plant knowledge when young, it will give us no shade when we are old.
Lord Chesterfield
Dr. Zachary Stowe reprimanded by Emory
Dr. Zachary Stowe, a well-known researcher in the field of anti-depressant usage during pregnancy and postpartum, has been disciplined by Emory University for failing to disclose a conflict of interest while conducting research using a NIH grant during 2007 and 2008. Dr. Charles Nemeroff, also of Emory, was also found to have existing conflicts while conducting research just a few months ago.
These disheartening discoveries are becoming too commonplace. What’s happened to honest, decent morals? What’s happened to working for the greater good instead of the not-so-almighty dollar?
I must say that my initial reaction was one of very deep disappointment as this is all unfolding in my own backyard. Emory is one of the most well known resources for Postpartum support here in Georgia. Without Emory, there’s not much left to the support and knowledge of Postpartum Mood Disorders and their treatment here. (Trust me, I’ve worked to find one!)
I sincerely hope both Dr. Nemeroff and Dr. Stowe have learned important lessons through all of this. I also hope other researchers will realize the importance of honesty when disclosing relationships during research.
The public deserves un-biased data when it comes to our health. Has that even become too much to ask for?
Postpartum Anxiety Delays Puberty in Offspring
In another study with mice, researchers have discovered that a low level of Prolactin in early pregnancy translates to a delay in puberty. The results were revealed yesterday at The Endocrine Society’s 91st Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.
The most interesting aspect of this research was the discovery that regardless of environment (ie, raised by an anxious mouse or non-anxious mouse), the offspring of the “anxious” mice still experienced a delay of puberty when raised by a controlled non-anxious mother.
Here’s a snippet of the press release:
FDA forms “Transparency Task Force”
In a press release today, the FDA announced the formation of a Transparency Task Force.
It’s about time the FDA opened the doors to it’s process. As consumers, we deserve to know all the risks involved with anything we ingest as food or use to treat our mental or physical illnesses. For far too long companies have been able to use the FDA’s slow process as a shield to hide behind, harming consumers in the process. This abuse has to stop if we are to have any hope of a fair economy. We need to be able to trust in those who provide our sustenance and medications.
The FDA invites public opinion and has scheduled an open meeting for June 24th. They also have a blog dedicated to this Task Force at their website that will run for the next six months.
Taken directly from the FDA’s press release, the following are goals of the Task Force:
The Transparency Task Force will:
- Seek public input on issues related to transparency;
- Recommend ways that the agency can better explain its operations compatible with the appropriate protection of confidential information;
- Identify information the FDA should provide about specific agency operations and activities, including enforcement actions and product approvals;
- Identify problems and barriers, both internal and external, to providing useful and understandable information about FDA activities and decision-making to the public;
- Identify appropriate tools and new technologies for informing the public;
- Recommend changes to the FDA’s current operations, including internal policies and guidance, to improve the agency’s ability to provide information to the public in a timely and effective manner;
- Recommend legislative or regulatory changes, if appropriate, to improve the FDA’s ability to provide information to the public; and
- Submit a written report to the commissioner on the Transparency Task Force’s findings and recommendations.
Screening for PPD @ Well-Child Visits
A recently published study in the Journal of Pediatrics examined if screening for Postpartum Depression during the first six months of life was enough.
The women participating were adolescents. Physicians were electronically cued to screen their patients during their infant’s two month well-child check-up. No patients refused the screening. Up to 99% of the cases were screened, 98% of the time the EPDS was administered and mothers with a score greater than 10 were ALWAYS referred for help.
At 3wks postpartum, scores proved to be unstable. At two, four, and six months, the scores slowly decreased. Overall, 20% of new mothers scored 10 or higher.

