Continuing his drive for transparency in medicine, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking advocacy and professional associations to clarify how much funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. This is part of a larger set of questions about conflicts-of-interest, the independence of their respective organizations, and continuing medical education.

Questions about conflicts-of-interest have previously focused on high-earning doctors lecturing for drug companies, but now 32 organizations have been asked to provide information outlined in a letter (available on the Senate Finance Committee website), dated Dec. 7. Referring to a report from the Institute of Medicine about conflicts-of-interest, and several news stories, Grassley asked for documentation about top executives, board members, and policies about disclosure. "Operating with transparency sends a message that there is nothing to hide," he said.

In a tone that seemed first to scold, and then to compliment the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Grassley said they agreed to list contributions over $5,000 on their website. One member of the board resigned in October, expressing frustration that the leadership had not resolved an issue that raised doubts about a conflict-of-interest.

Yesterday the senator issued a press release listing reactions from the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society, and the Alzheimer's Association appearing in the New York Times. In addition to these, and to mental health advocacy organizations, Grassley's request was made of elite associations of doctors specializing in sub-specialties including diabetes, family practice, obstetrics, gynecology, dermatology, surgery and dentistry. He gave the organizations until Dec. 21 to respond.