Some testimony under oath in Cassidy v Eli Lilly, taken in Chicago, on November 21, 2001, under questioning from A See, attorney for Lilly, might be of use here. I have left the text complete with redundancies
See: You have served as a consultant to Pharmacia and Upjohn regarding their antidepressant reboxetine?
H: Yes, I have.
See: You have done clinical work for them?
H: No, I have done no clinical trials. I have served as a consultant for them. I have been a speaker for them, but done no clinical work.
See: You have gone to speak in front of peer groups?
See: About Reboxetine?
H: I primarily talked about the role of the drug acting on the [norepinephrine] system in the case of people who were depressed.
See: And it happens that that's the way reboxetine works?
H: Absolutely, yes.
See: And you have been compensated for that?
H: I have indeed.
See: Did you perform that work at the request of Pharmacia and Upjohn and your receipt of compensation from them for performing education functions and so on, did that make you a biased person?
H: I'm sure that the receipt of funds from Pharmacia and Upjohn as well as the receipt of funds from Lilly and SmithKline and others has biased me, yes. I think some sort of bias is inevitable. It is an issue of trying to manage that bias.