The Virginia Tech Response
STEVEN ROWSON
0
1
STEFAN M. DUMA
0
1
0
cal Engineering and Sciences
, Virginia Tech - Wake Forest Univer- sity, Blacksburg,
VA, USA
. Electronic mail:
1
School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University
, Blacksburg,
VA, USA
We believe that Dr. Albert King's letter regarding the STAR system paper22 is not scientifically based, factually incorrect, and illustrates that he does not understand the STAR system's methodology. All of our research from Virginia Tech on this subject has been peer reviewed and published in open journals. In contrast, Dr. King bases his comments on a single reference to an internal graduate student thesis that has not been peer reviewed, has not been published in a journal, and which is not publicly available. This is not how the scientific process works. While studying our comments, we ask the reader to keep in mind that all of this debate comes down to a very simple question: do you want to buy a helmet that reduces head acceleration? The STAR system is a complex experimental methodology that combines exposure and injury risk based on current scientific knowledge. Simply stated, it provides independent data to consumers to illustrate which helmets lower head acceleration.
-
DR. KINGS APPARENT SUBSTANTIAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
In order to understand the severity of Dr. Kings
apparent conflict of interest, it is important to
understand the entire timeline of our STAR paper
relative to his letter to the editor. In May 2011, we
published the STAR paper, after a 3-month open
response period, and after full peer-review in the
Annals of Biomedical Engineering (ABME). During
this process, and for the entire next year, Dr. King did
not submit any letters to ABME, nor did he submit
any questions or comments to us regarding this paper.
Once he submitted his letter, we contacted Dr. King,
but he refused to discuss his letter or any potential
conflicts. In order to gain clarity, Virginia Tech was
forced to file a Freedom of Information Act request
with Wayne State University so that we could
document the following timeline, contracts, and statements.
In May 2012, at the request of lawyers working for
Xenith (a helmet manufacturer), a consulting company
emailed experts around the country looking to retain
anyone who would critique the STAR paper. This
email stated that the Xenith helmet did not fare well
in the ratings. They sent this email to Dr. King on
May 9, 2012, and he responded to them within 2 h
saying it was a pleasure talking with you, and he
forwarded his CV. On May 17, 2012, Dr. King signed a
contract with them entitled Xenith LLC Consulting
which summarized the agreement that he would be
paid $400/h and all reasonable expenses for his critique
of the STAR paper.
Over the next several weeks, Dr. King filled out time
sheets recording his consulting hours as he prepared
his report for this company. On June 17, 2012, Dr.
King produced a draft report on Albert I. King Inc
letterhead entitled Review of the STAR Report by
Rowson and Duma. A few days later on June 21,
2012, Dr. King submitted a letter to the Editor of
ABME that was virtually identical to this draft report.
Dr. King provided no disclosure of any conflicts of
interest in this letter. The next day and while the letter
was under review, Xenith began nationally distributing
a report from Dr. King, also dated June 21, 2012, that
was virtually identical to his letter to the Editor of
ABME. This report also does not include any
disclosure of any conflicts of interest.
On June 25, 2012, based on concerns raised about
potential conflict of interest issues, Dr. King was
specifically asked by the Editor of ABME to provide any
disclosures related to this work, in terms of retainers
etc. from lawyers as well as companies. Dr. King
responded I received no personal compensation from
anyone for writing this letter to the editor. For a
second time, Dr. King did not disclose any relationship
or potential conflict of interest, even when directly
asked by the Editor.
On June 29, 2012, Dr. King was informed that
ABME had a copy of the May 2012 email request from
a company representing Xeniths lawyers, as well as a
copy of his June 21, 2012 report that Xenith was
distributing and which was effectively identical to his
letter. Because of potential copyright issues, Dr. King
was asked to write a different letter. He was also asked
to complete a much more detailed conflict of interest
form. This form specifically stated that Dr. King must
report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be
paid)from sources with relevance to the submitted
work. On July 19, 2012, Dr. King submitted his
revised letter with a new story about his conflict of
interest. In this disclosure Dr. King states that I was
originally asked by Xenith Corp to write a written
review of the paper in question with remuneration.
As the consulting story unfolded, we contacted Dr.
King directly and informed him that we were aware of this
se (...truncated)