“There are programs like ‘Oprah,’ which chronicle the impact these illnesses have on peoples’ lives, and then there’s 'Nature Neuroscience,' which tells you what’s going on in the brain. But only The Infinite Mind combines the two approaches, clearly explaining the science and the effect these illnesses have on people.”
- The Sunday New York Times "On an Expedition Through the Mind" August 12, 2001

“Every reporter who covers mental health should listen to The Infinite Mind. The program is a model of fine storytelling and it demonstrates how to make highly complex subjects accessible and even gripping. Most important, the show conveys its respect and appreciation for people with mental illness.”
- Association of Health Care Journalists, 2002

The Infinite Mind 1997 – 2008

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) about The Infinite Mind:

Q: What was The Infinite Mind?

A: The Infinite Mind was an award-winning, nationally broadcast public radio program, which premiered in 1998. The program featured host Dr. Fred Goodwin (1998 – 2004 and 2006 – 2008), host Dr. Peter Kramer (2004 – 2006) and commentator and guest host John Hockenberry (1998 – 2006).

Q: What was the mission of the program and what did it cover?

A: The Infinite Mind covered the broadest spectrum of topics related to the art and science of the human mind, including neuroscience, the neurobiology of human behavior, mental health and wellness. Each program focused on a single subject and topics included Dyslexia, Asperger’s Syndrome, ECT, Tourette's Syndrome, Alzheimer’s, Domestic Violence, Bipolar Disorder, Multiple Sclerosis, Mental Health Care for Immigrants, Native Americans and Suicide, Seasonal Affective Disorder, Alcoholism, Schizoaffective Disorder, Mental Health Care for Latinos, Neuroethics, Pregnancy and the Mind, Epilepsy, Gambling, and Mental Health and Primary Care. In addition to topics relating to mental health and neuroscience, the series focuses on topics of broad interest to the general public, including recent shows on Multitasking, Writer’s Block, Foods and Moods, Courage, Satisfaction, Genius, Creativity, TV and the Mind, Intelligence, Fame, Religion: Beyond Belief, What’s in a Name?, Domestic Violence, Alcoholism, Gambling, Memory, Stigma, The Dopamine Connection, and Pregnancy and the Mind, among others.

The Infinite Mind was particularly honored for its work in the wake of the September 11th attacks as being the first national broadcast to identify and significantly report on the mental health impact of the terrorism, particularly with regard to trauma, PTSD, accessing counseling and resilience.

The program received more than 30 major broadcast journalism honors, including a United Nations Media Award, six National Headliner Awards, four Gracie Awards, and honors from leading mental health organizations including the National Institute of Mental Health, National Mental Health Association and the National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression.

Q: Who appeared on The Infinite Mind?

A: The show featured discussions with world-leading experts, including neuroscientists and clinicians, interviews with celebrities and public figures, special reports, essays by our hosts and our regular commentators, listener calls, first-person accounts by those with mental disorders, author readings, and musical performances.

Many of the world’s most influential scientists and clinicians working in neuroscience and the behavioral sciences visited The Infinite Mind’s studios as did leading authors, musicians and actors, who helped generate public interest in mental health by sharing their own experiences and perspectives.

Q: Who produced The Infinite Mind?

A: The show was independently produced and distributed by Lichtenstein Creative Media (LCM), an independent media production company that was based in Manhattan from 1990 through 2004, and in Cambridge, MA starting in 2004. At the height of its production, the show was produced by a staff of 10, including producers, associate producers, administrative support, and interns. June Peoples, a former award-winning newspaper editor, was the executive producer from 1998 – 2006 and Bill Lichtenstein, president of LCM, was senior executive producer. Bill Lichtenstein assumed the role of executive producer in 2006 through 2008.

Q: How was the program distributed?

A: The Infinite Mind was distributed by LCM directly to NPR stations across the country over NPR’s Public Radio Satellite System, which is available to independent producers for a fee. The program also aired several times weekly on National Public Radio's Sirius Satellite channel, “NPR Now.”

Q: How was program funded?

A: Unlike most other public radio programs, for which radio stations have to pay a “carriage fee,” The Infinite Mind was provided to public radio stations for broadcast without charge. This was done in order to maximize the reach of the program, and to insure that it was heard by audiences in small, inner-city and rural markets, where mental health information was critical, and where stations often could not afford to pay carriage fees.

All funds for the program were raised by Lichtenstein Creative Media. Major funders (annual contributions of $250,000 and up) included the National Science Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Other funding came in the form of grants from foundations and government agencies, donations from individuals and corporate giving. Included in our funding were unrestricted educational grants from pharmaceutical companies. The use of this funding is highly regulated by federal law and by written agreement to insure that the donor does not in any way involve itself with the editorial content of the program. All donors were disclosed prominently at the end of the program and on our web site.

Q: When was Dr. Fred Goodwin hired as host?

A: Dr. Goodwin was hired in 1997 to host the pilot of The Infinite Mind, a program on sleep, which aired in December 1997, and later to host the series, starting with its premiere in April 1998.

Q: Why was Dr. Fred Goodwin chosen to be the host of The Infinite Mind?

A: Dr. Goodwin was a renowned researcher and clinician, who helped train a generation of psychiatrists and neuroscientists. He was the former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, a position that made him America’s “top psychiatrist,” and he taught at George Washington University. He was also a world leading expert on the subject of manic depression, having written the definitive medical text book on the illness with psychologist and author Kay Jamison. Equally important, was that Dr. Goodwin had an engaging on-air presence, an instinctive understanding of how to talk to his guests and radio listeners, and was able to explain complicated scientific and other matters in simple terms so they could be understood by our listeners.

Q: When did you first learn that Dr. Goodwin had accepted more than $1.2 million in speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline from 2000 to 2008 to promote their products?

A: Lichtenstein Creative Media president Bill Lichtenstein first learned that Dr. Goodwin had been paid to speak on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline when he received a phone call from New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris on November 20, 2008. When told of the payments, Lichtenstein asked Harris where he had gotten his information from. When Harris told him that the information came from Dr. Goodwin, Lichtenstein told Harris that he was “stunned.”

Q: Prior to the New York Times article, were you aware of a relationship between Dr. Fred Goodwin and the pharmaceutical industry?

A: We were aware that Dr. Goodwin had involvement with pharmaceutical companies in the areas of education and research, including speaking at Continuing Medical Education courses (CME’s), which are highly regulated with regard to disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, and his receipt of grants for research. According to the CV on Dr. Goodwin’s web site, the last research he disclosed was in 2001.

However, what we were not aware of, at any time, until we received the call from Gardiner Harris at the New York Times on November 20, 2008, was that Dr. Goodwin had business and marketing relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including the $1.2 million he received from GlaxoSmithKline, even though he was required to disclose those relationships to us.

These are critical distinctions. Most highly credible medical research scientists have at one time or another accepted pharmaceutical support for their research. And support for Continuing Medical Education programs is highly regulated with regard to disclosure and potential conflicts of interest. What we did not know, because Dr. Goodwin did not disclose it, was that he was accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from drug companies' marketing budgets to help them promote their products

Q: Why was Dr. Goodwin required to disclose to LCM and The Infinite Mind his receipt of fees from pharmaceutical companies to assist them in promoting their products?

A: In 2006, Dr. Goodwin signed a contract with LCM with regard to his hosting of The Infinite Mind. The drafting of the contract involved lengthy negotiations between LCM’s and Dr. Goodwin’s respective attorneys, particularly with regard to the conflict of interest language in the agreement. The strict language we ultimately agreed to in the contract provided that Dr. Goodwin inform us of any conflicts of interest, both going forward as well as retrospectively, back to 1997, so that we would be aware of any potential conflicts, whether in the past or future.

At no point, during the negotiations or after, did Dr. Goodwin or his attorney make us or our attorneys aware of any conflict of interest, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds we now know Dr. Goodwin was receiving at the time, and through 2008, for speaking on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline. Perhaps most troubling is that following a lengthy meeting in our lawyers' office, Goodwin signed the contract, knowing full well that he was not in compliance with its clear terms regarding conflict of interest. (See Dr. Goodwin’s contract with LCM.)

Q: How did New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris get access to the information regarding the payments received by Dr. Fred Goodwin from GlaxoSmithKline?

A: The information regarding the GlaxoSmithKline payments to Dr. Goodwin was obtained by Senator Charles Grassley, who has been investigating psychiatrists who had accepted funding from pharmaceutical companies and not disclosed it while working on projects that receive federal funds, in The Infinite Mind's case funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The payments to Dr. Goodwin were detailed in records Senator Grassley received directly from GlaxoSmithKline, and Dr. Goodwin confirmed to New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris that he received the payments.

Dr. Goodwin is the third major psychiatrist to be investigated by Senator Grassley regarding the disclosure of funds received from the pharmaceutical industry.. The two others are world-renowned child psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard University, who failed to disclose $1.6 million he received in pharmaceutical fees, and Dr. Charles Nemeroff, who was removed as Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Emory University after Senator Grassley revealed that he had failed to report at least $1.2 million in fees from pharmaceutical companies.

Q: According to Senator Grassley’s records, how much did Dr. Goodwin receive?

A: According to Senator Grassley’s records, from 2000 to 2008 Dr. Goodwin received a total of $1,226,200 in speaking fees (beginning with $14,000 in 2000 and reaching a high of $394,500 in 2005), and a total of $117,100 in reimbursements and travel fees. (See Senator Grassley's payment chart.)

Q: What was LCM's response to the New York Times article?
A: In the wake of the November 22, 2008 New York Times article, LCM reaffirmed that we were not aware of the payments Dr. Goodwin was receiving from GlaxoSmithKline, noting that Dr. Goodwin's failure to disclose the payments was a serious violation of the conflict of interest agreement Dr. Goodwin signed. LCM also contacted Senator Grassley's office to offer whatever support we could with his investigations.

Q: What was NPR’s response to Grassley’s revelations?

A: Following the revelations of the payments from GlaxoSmithKline to Dr. Goodwin, NPR announced that it would suspend broadcast of The Infinite Mind on its Sirius Satellite channel, “NPR Now.” However, when the November 22, 2008 New York Times article reported that “NPR would remove “The Infinite Mind” from its satellite radio service next week, the earliest date possible,” readers erroneously were led to believe that The Infinite Mind was distributed by NPR, and that NPR was canceling the show, an error that was reported in dozens of news stories and blogs postings identifying The Infinite Mind with NPR.

NPR did two reports on the controversy, one on-line, posted on November 25, 2008, and a segment that aired on NPR’s “On The Media” on November 28, 2008.

The “On The Media” segment featured one guest, NPR’s media reporter David Folkenflik, with a brief appearance by Senator Grassley. Folkenflik was critical of LCM, and was relying on information he said had obtained from an unnamed, anonymous source, that indicated that LCM was aware of Dr. Goodwin’s fees. "On The Media" failed to ask LCM or anyone affiliated with The Infinite Mind for a response or comment on the report. However, subsequently, the anonymous source, former The Infinite Mind producer Emily Fisher, has come forward and disputed the NPR report, saying that Folkenflik called her in a “rushed” manner shortly before the program aired, and that in fact she had no evidence that Dr. Goodwin had informed LCM about the fees he received from GlaxoSmithKline or for assisting the marketing efforts of any pharmaceutical company. NPR has yet to respond or correct the story (See LCM response to "On The Media" segment "Money Talks.")

Q: What was Dr. Goodwin’s response to the New York Times and the revelations of his acceptance of speaking fees from GlaxoSmithKline?

A: Dr. Goodwin’s position has evolved since the publication of the New York Times article on November 22, 2008. In the New York Times article, it was reported that “In an interview, Dr. Goodwin said that Bill Lichtenstein, the program’s producer, knew of his consulting but that neither thought ‘getting money from drug companies could be an issue.’”

Following the New York Times article, Dr. Goodwin released a statement criticizing reporter Harris and the New York Times article. At the bottom he wrote, "It is true that Mr. Lichtenstein may not have known all the details, but he was generally aware of my activities."

On December 1, 2008, Dr. Goodwin released a statement, posted on Pharmalot.com, saying that "The Infinite Mind producers were aware of my connections to pharmaceutical companies although I acknowledge that Mr. Lichtenstein may not have known all of the details." Dr. Goodwin's statement also contained a note from an anonymous former The Infinite Mind staff member, stating that she "wouldn't be surprised" if I were aware of Dr. Goodwin's activities. That former staff member, Emily Fisher, has since reviewed the facts in this matter, and concluded that in her opinion Dr. Goodwin did not disclose the funding he was receiving from GlaxoSmithKline.

Three days, later, on December 4, 2008, the George Washington University student newspaper, the "GW Hatchet," reported that Dr. Goodwin denied that any conflict of interest had taken place in his receiving pharmaceutical fees at the same time that he was hosting The Infinite Mind public radio show. ("I frankly do not see these things as a conflict of interest," Dr. Goodwin told the newspaper) Additionally, the article reported that "Goodwin also maintains he did not violate any contracts with "The Infinite Mind" because Goodwin and Lichtenstein casually talked of Goodwin's consulting with drug companies and because it was never required for him to disclose information." Goodwin says this, despite the fact that in 2006 he signed the tough conflict of interest agreement covering his work on The Infinite Mind. On December 9, 2008, the prestigious British Medical Journal released an article entitled "US psychiatrist is fired from radio programme for not disclosing drug ties," which quoted Goodwin as saying he did not believe there was a conflict of interest since "besides GlaxoSmithKline he has been paid by Pfizer, Solvay, Janssen, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. He said he believed that this cancelled out the possible influence of any one company."

The December 2, 2008 "GW Hatchet" article also reported Goodwin as saying that Senator Charles Grassley was wrong with regard to how much he received for speaking on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline, even though Senator Grassley has detailed more than $1.2 million in speaking fees cited in GlaxoSmithKline documents. Goodwin told the newspaper that he received less than one million dollar from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Goodwin also criticized the New York Times article for including his travel fees as part of his compensation from GlaxoSmithKline, to which the New York Times reporter, Gardiner Harris responded in the article: "I think most people would see travel expenses to very nice places as a benefit worthy of citing." Gardiner Harris has since told LCM in an email that Goodwin’s responses to the New York Times article are “misstatements and contradictions.”

Q: Were relationships between guests on the program and pharmaceutical companies disclosed on the air?

A: We followed the same rules as major news organizations with regard to the disclosure of conflicts of interest of guests on the program, which is that we disclosed any ties that presented a conflict of interest with regard to the matter being discussed. News organizations have not traditionally disclosed the receipt of past or present pharmaceutical funding for educational activities or research unless it was relevant to the subject being discussed, a guideline that is being re-examined by many news organizations in the wake of recent events. .

Consider for example, Dr. Fred Goodwin had appeared as a guest expert on various NPR programs from All Things Considered to Talk of the Nation, discussing medication studies. In these stories, NPR identified Dr. Goodwin to its listeners only as a professor, public radio host, and former government official. In none of these cases did NPR make any reference to the fact that Dr. Goodwin had connections to the pharmaceutical industry, even in the areas of education and research.

The issue of disclosure goes well beyond Dr. Goodwin.

Dr. Charles Nemeroff, one of the three major psychiatrists being investigated by Senator Charles Grassley for taking and not disclosing more than one million dollars in pharmaceutical fees, appeared on NPR's All Things Considered in June 2008 and previously on NPR's Morning Edition discussing research on the positive aspects of anti-depressants for children. In neither case, was his relationship to the pharmaceutical industry disclosed by NPR, and he was identified only as a "psychiatrist" and "research scientist."

Additionally, Dr. Joseph Biederman, the leading Harvard child psychiatrist who is also under investigation by Senator Grassley for not disclosing pharmaceutical consulting fees, appeared in a New York Times article on November 23, 2006, entitled "Proof is Scant on Psychiatric Drug Mix for Young." The article was written by New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris (the same Gardiner Harris who wrote the New York Times article critical of "The Infinite Mind"). In the New York Times article, Dr. Biederman was quoted as defending multiple psychiatric drug therapies for kids ("These drugs have revolutionized how we treat severe psychopathology in children," said Biederman.) However, neither Dr. Biederman's relationship to the pharmaceutical industry nor his pharmaceutical consulting fees of at least $1.6 million between 2000 and 2007 were disclosed by Gardiner Harris in his New York Times article.

Q: Why was Peter Kramer hired to host The Infinite Mind in 2004?

A: Dr. Goodwin's frequent educational and research intersections with the pharmaceutical industry as a leading researcher, scientist, and clinician led us to hire author and psychiatrist Dr. Peter Kramer as primary host in 2004, in part because Kramer had no pharmaceutical ties. We called our major funders, including the MacArthur Foundation, and informed them of our decision to change hosts and the specific reasons, cited above, for doing it. Nonetheless, Dr. Goodwin remained on the show as both guest host and contributor, forming an on-air team of Dr. Goodwin, Peter Kramer, Michelle Trudeau and John Hockenberry, which was widely publicized to radio stations and in advertisements.

Two years later, LCM was getting feedback from listeners and stations that Dr. Kramer wasn't as engaging on the air as Dr. Goodwin, and we asked Dr. Goodwin if he would return as primary host of the show. He said he was interested. At that point we entered into contract negotiations, with the sticking point being the conflict of interest language. The final strict language in the contract that Dr. Goodwin signed provided that he inform us of any conflicts of interest both going forward as well as retrospectively, back to 1997, so that we would be aware of any potential conflicts, whether in the past or future.

At no point, during the negotiations or after, did Dr. Goodwin or his attorney make LCM or our attorneys aware of any conflict of interest, including the hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees we now know Dr. Goodwin was getting at the time, and through 2008, for speaking on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline, and he signed the agreement even though he was not in compliance at the time with its terms regarding conflict of interest.

Q: What was the controversy surrounding the “Prozac Nation: Revisited” episode of The Infinite Mind and the article on Slate.com by Jeanne Lenzer and Sharon Brownlee?

A: The program “Prozac Nation: Revisited” aired on The Infinite Mind during the week beginning March 26, 2008. The program’s focus was on a 2004 “black box” warning that the FDA had issued with regard to anti-depressants and their use by children. At the time, research indicated that the warning resulted in a decrease in the use of anti-depressants by children, and a commensurate rise in the number of youth suicides, which was confirmed by a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on September 8, 2008. Additionally, critics of the FDA’s actions pointed out that the FDA in its own statement said it was responding to “the risk of suicidality” (suicidal thoughts), as opposed to the risk of suicide. The program also maintained that there were no major studies indicating that anti-depressants were linked to suicide.

After extensive research, producers were of the belief that while there is data from pharmaceutical company research and anecdotal evidence that people who take antidepressants for depression have taken their own life, there was no major research study to demonstrate that there was a link between antidepressants and suicide.

The guests on the program included Dr. Nada Stotland, who was at the time the President-elect of the American Psychiatric Association; Dr. Andrew Leuchter, a leading researcher and director of the UCLA Laboratory of Brain, Behavior, and Pharmacology; and Peter Pitts, of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, who was an FDA official at the time of the FDA’s “black box” warning. The program was hosted by Dr. Fred Goodwin.

What was not noted in the program was various indicators of a link between antidepressants and suicide, ranging from the fact that people who are suicidal are excluded from antidepressant drug research, to the case of a woman who committed suicide during a drug trial, to analysis of data released by pharmaceutical companies. A fierce debate continues to rage over the link between antidepressants and suicide, with a full accounting of the data supporting the link at www.chemicalimbalance.com

The Slate article took the "Prozac Nation: Revisited" program to task for not revealing the pharmaceutical ties of the guests including Dr. Stotland (who had previously been on the speakers’ bureaus of pharmaceutical companies); Dr. Leuchter (who had received funding from pharmaceutical companies for research in areas other than those being discussed on the program); and Peter Pitts, who in addition to working for the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest also worked for a PR firm that had pharmaceutical companies as clients. In the case of Peter Pitts, LCM acknowledged it had erred by not having learned and disclosed his public relations affiliation (likely if it had been known, we would not have had him on the program). LCM noted that with regard to Pitts, NPR and PBS's NewsHour had made the same error of omission, and LCM responded to the Slate.com article, as well as postings on various blogs that cover the pharmaceutical industry.

The Slate.com article was reviewed by STATS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the George Mason University that works to improve the quality of scientific and statistical information in public discourse. STATS concluded that "The Infinite Mind needs to deal with the fact that it underplayed the risk [of antidepressants and suicide]; but Slate and Brownlee and Lenzer need to consider something less palatable: whether their approach to reporting this issue is putting, on balance, more lives at stake.

Q: Was the "Prozac Nation: Revisited" show funded by pharmaceutical funding?

A: No. The Slate.com article erroneously reported that the "Prozac Nation: Revisited" program, which aired in March 2008, was funded in part by the Eli Lilly Foundation, which was untrue, as the past pharmaceutical funding we had received at that time was in 2006.

Q: What has been response from listeners and stations to the New York Times revelations?

A; We have received hundreds of emails from listeners and radio stations in support of The Infinite Mind, and telling us that they will miss it. They have also assured us that the good the program did over the past 10 years in helping to destigmatize mental illness, and to help provide avenues of hope and help to those affected will not be washed away by recent events.

Q: Were the shows Dr. Goodwin hosted compromised?

A: Impossible to say the extent to which they may have been compromised by Dr. Goodwin's clear conflict of interest. We have reviewed many of the programs, and find it hard to say what impact there may have been, if any, on the programs. But conflict of interest is a subtle and insidious force, which can involve something as subtle as a “flinch” about saying or doing one thing as opposed to another.

Q: What will be outcome of this entire matter?

A: We will continue our work, and believe that there is a need for total disclosure in all cases of industry fees or other compensation to doctors, both for the sake of journalism as well as for the nation’s health. In recent years, news organizations have continued to revise their conflict of interest guidelines with regard to what is acceptable and disclosure for both both journalists and guests/interviewees. That process continues to evolve rapidly, especially in the wake of this matter.

With regard to the disclosures by medical professionals, on December 3, 2008, the Cleveland Clinic became the first major medical facility to post industry fees accepted by their physicians on-line. According to the Cleveland Clinic, “included for each physician, scientist and physician/scientist will be a list of the names of companies with which they have collaborations, further identifying whether they have equity, the right to royalties, a fiduciary position or a consulting relationship that pays $5,000 or more per year.”

Additionally, U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) are introducing legislation to require manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, devices and biologics to disclose the amount of money they give to doctors through payments, gifts, honoraria, travel and other means.

"Right now the public has no way to know whether a doctor's been given money that might affect prescribing habits," Senator Grassley said. "This bill is about letting the sun shine in so that the public can know. Whether it's dinner at a restaurant or tens of thousands of dollars or more in fees and travel, patients shouldn't be in the dark about whether their doctors are getting money from drug and device makers."