Critics poo poo the measure as little more than lip service, a PR move that doesn’t address the far bigger issue: that the drug industry and medicine are hopelessly financially intertwined. (Want proof? Exhibits A, B, and C.) Doctors, meanwhile, brush off the idea that logo-ed pens and Post-Its could alter their prescribing habits.

Still, there’s plenty to be said for the influence of everyday objects, not to mention the power of advertising. Surround yourself with enough Burger King merchandise, and you’d be amazed at how often you start craving Whoppers. Wouldn’t the same principle apply when it comes to physicians and drugs?

(Full disclosure: RB is the child of two doctors, and our childhood desk was filled to overflowing with pens, paperweights, magnets, notepads, and countless other booty emblazoned with words like Diflucan, Avandia, and Provigil. We never went to med school, but we’d probably prescribe Lipitor simply because of their awesome mousepads.)

The pendulum has already started shifting towards greater disclosure in the medical industry, and eliminating freebies is a good move in that direction—not to mention an acknowledgment by the industry that the obscene amounts they’ve been spending on marketing may not be good for medicine.

Now if we could just get them to do something about those free lunches.

Related:
RB: Is Nothing Sacred? Nobel Prize Engulfed in Drug Company Scandal
RB: Clinic to Reveal All Doctor-Drug Industry Ties on the Web
RB: Drug Company Pocket-Padding: The Latest Chapter

Welcome to today’s heaping dose of cynicism, to start off the weekend right: Scandal has hit none other than the Nobel Prize, after it was revealed that a member of the Nobel selection committee also sat on the board of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceuticals juggernaut that will benefit from this year’s award for medicine.

The 2008 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine went to three people this year, Luc Montagnier and his (ahem, female) partner Françoise Barre-Sinoussi for discovering HIV, and Harald zur Hausen for his work on the human papilloma virus (HPV) and its link to cervical cancer.

Wouldn’t you know it, AstraZeneca just happens to have a big fat stake in two lucrative HPV vaccines.

To make matters worse:

Two senior figures in the process that chose Mr. zur Hausen have strong links with the pharmaceutical company, which has also recently begun sponsoring the Nobel website and promotional subsidiary. The company strongly denies any wrongdoing.

Ah yes, well as long as they deny any wrongdoing! No matter that these sponsorships are estimated to cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next three years. Also mildly fishy is the fact that the chairman of the five-person committee that assesses Nobel candidates served as a paid consultant for AstraZeneca in 2006.

And as if improper drug company ties weren’t enough, there’s also the little matter of expenses-paid trips to China for Nobel committee members, made with the intention of “tell[ing Chinese] officials how candidates are selected for prizes.”

The anti-corruption unit of the Swedish police is reportedly starting a preliminary investigation—though Michael Sohlman, executive director of the Nobel Foundation, has dismissed the whole hubbub as a media ploy. Meanwhile, the rest of us can cry into our smörgåsar and wait for Santa to announce his sponsorship deal with Pfizer.

Related:
RB: Note to Media: They Give Nobel Prizes to Women These Days
RB: Clinic to Reveal All Doctor-Drug Industry Ties on the Web
RB: Drug Company Pocket-Padding: The Latest Chapter

Doctors and drug company money have gone together like peas and carrots for as long as most of us can remember. By now, it’s become almost a cliche to note that Big Pharma continues to spend billions every year “influencing” docs, some of whom are pocketing seven-figure checks for notoriously-nebulous “consulting fees.”

All of which makes it pretty remarkable that major medical centers are now planning to disclose the drug company ties of every one of their doctors. While criticism of the chummy relations between the medical and pharmaceutical communities has been on the rise in recent years, a move like this is unprecedented—and has the potential to set a new standard in the industry.

The leader of the disclosure charge is none other than medical behemoth the Cleveland Clinic, which will announce this week that it plan to disclose every physician and researcher tie to the pharmaceutical industry… on its Web site no less. Granted, the number of other hospitals that plan to take such a public and widespread approach to disclosure isn’t huge, according to ABC News, but it includes some pretty big names, including the University of Iowa and Duke University’s Clinical Research Institute.

But is it enough?

Critics say that disclosure in and of itself does little to discourage conflicts of interest, and that the self-policing of these policies gives physicians incentives to under-reveal. Cynics even say the ties between the two industries are so deep that reporting them is just shy of pointless. Plus there’s the argument that doctors need the drug industry (and vice versa) for its funding of continued medical education and important research.

Still, when given the option of mandatory disclosure versus condoned secrecy, we’d say it’s an easy choice.

Related:
RB: Drug Company Pocket-Padding: The Latest Chapter
RB: Drugonomics: Cash-Strapped Americans Taking Fewer Prescription Meds