corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19815

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: Magazine

All above board
New Scientist 2004 Mar 6
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124370.100-all-above-board.html


Full text:

DOES science need cleaning up? Some people think so. A panel convened by the US government’s National Institutes of Health is looking into tighter rules on collaborations between NIH scientists and outside companies. The move follows an article in the Los Angeles Times in December which alleged that NIH researchers had been collecting fees and stock options without publicly disclosing the ties to the companies concerned.

More recently in the UK, Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who first proposed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, has faced charges that he failed to disclose a possible financial conflict of interest when he submitted the 1998 paper that triggered the scare. And last week, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which represents scores of leading medical journals, released summaries of cases brought to its attention in 2003. These included researchers submitting unethical or dubious research for peer review, and even attempts …

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963