Healthy Skepticism Library item: 16384

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Exorcising authors
The Finanical Times 2009 08 30
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7434ad6-9588-11de-90e0-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Full text:

When French politicians or British sportsmen produce books with the help of unacknowledged “ghost-writers”, there is some deception involved. When pharmaceutical companies adopt similar tactics to promote their drugs in medical journals, the risks are far greater.

Companies periodically hire consultants to draft articles about their products, and then find reputable academics and doctors to attach their names as authors so the manuscripts have more chance of publication in important journals. The consultants, and the companies, are “ghosts” whose pivotal role may go unmentioned.

The companies and ghost-writers gain financially, the journals get interesting articles, and the academics, sometimes despite little input of their own, ratchet up more publications to boost their careers. But the result can unfairly influence prescription practices – and the health of patients.

A number of examples have come to light in recent years, and an article in the latest PLoS Medicine journal highlights one instance revealed in great detail in documents in a court case brought against Wyeth for its hormone replacement therapies.

Like other companies in previous incidents, Wyeth insists the published papers were scientifically sound and reviewed by external experts. But such cases undermine the role of medical publications, which should be – and be seen to be – editorially independent from commercial influence.

Using professional medical writers and editors to improve clarity in manuscripts is acceptable and even desirable. Ghost-writing, which conceals underlying authorship, influence and financial support, is wrong. All those involved in an article should be cited; those without any significant input should not be mentioned as authors at all.

Following the lead of publications such as the BMJ, articles should contain a description of all funding, participating authors and the respective roles they played in the conception, study, drafting and reviewing of the paper.

A number of guidelines – by universities, journals, professional medical writers and drug companies alike – already exist which condemn ghost-writing. But they are inconsistently applied, and should be more widely endorsed.

They should also be enforced with sanctions. Authors who conceal their connections, or their own lack of contribution, should face the prospect of having their papers withdrawn and the reason – misconduct – publicly explained.