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: 6018

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

Fugh-berman A.
The Dog Ate My Disclosure
Bioethics Forum 2006 Aug 23
http://www.bioethicsforum.org/20060823afughberman.asp


Full text:

The Dog Ate My Disclosure
BY ADRIANE FUGH-BERMAN

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of a handful of consumer advocacy groups that takes no industry money, has called for medical journals to levy a three-year publishing ban on authors who omit declarations of conflicts of interest. Environmental Health Perspectives has imposed just such a ban.

In the August 7 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, however, editor Catherine DeAngelis favors education over punishment, arguing that medical journals cannot be responsible for ferreting out failures of disclosure and punishing miscreant authors. She makes the point that “it cleans our house by messing others,” meaning that an author punished by one journal would merely divert manuscripts elsewhere – although if journal editors shared information about cheaters this problem goes away. DeAngelis also writes that “those who suggest this approach have not considered the risk of an antitrust suit.” This seems far-fetched; antitrust litigation usually involves plotting for profits, not unpaid publications. Litigation paranoia aside, a secret blacklist of authors would be problematic because malicious, misleading, or mistaken entries could not easily be corrected.

So… don’t make it secret. Let’s out the perpetrators in public, where the merely naïve can apologize, the falsely accused can rescue their reputations, and the lying curs can bluster self-incriminating excuses. A forum where medical editors can describe nondisclosure incidents, and where others, including the implicated, can respond, would be a great service not only to editors, but to colleagues, the media, and consumers. Anyone receiving information from a source who stands to profit from that information deserves to know about conflicts of interest.

Without sanctions, a requirement is demoted to an easily-ignored request. If there is no downside to omitting conflicts of interest from an article submission, many authors will continue to omit information that could invite additional scrutiny of a manuscript.

CSPI’s proposal deserves support. A medical journal that identifies nondisclosure should ban an author from publishing in that journal for three years and should publish that information. And repeat offenders should receive the same sanction from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Association of Medical Editors. Medical journals have an ethical obligation to their readers – and to the public – to expose misdeeds.

comment

Comments are sent to the forum moderator. Select responses may be posted.
Bioethics Forum
is a service of the
Hastings Center Report IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LAW, MEDICINE, AND ETHICS ()
COMMENTATORS

* NICHOLAS AGAR * NANCY BERLINGER * ADRIANE FUGH-BERMAN * DANIEL CALLAHAN * ALASTAIR CAMPBELL * ALEXANDER CAPRON * TOD CHAMBERS * BRIETTA CLARK * ELLEN WRIGHT CLAYTON * CARL H. COLEMAN * REBECCA COOK * ALICE DREGER * CARL ELLIOTT * MICHELE GOODWIN * DIANE E. HOFFMANN * SANDRA H. JOHNSON * CAROL LEVINE * HILDE LINDEMANN * MAXWELL J. MEHLMAN * THOMAS H. MURRAY * WENDY E. PARMET * KELLY C. PIKE * JULIAN SAVULESCU * ROBERT L. SCHWARTZ * CHARITY SCOTT * EDWARD TENNER

RECENT POSTS

P3/4 and the Coming Revolution

The AIDS Epidemic @ 25: Between Memory and Activism

The Straight Dope on Medical News

The Organization Men

After the TGN1412 Tragedy: Addressing the Right Questions at the Right Time for Early Phase Testing

Something Is Actually Happening: Are Bioethicists Doing the Right Stuff?

You Give Me Fever: Pandemic, Passion, and Public Health in 1940s Gotham

When I’m 64 (and Then Some), Who Will Care?

Happy Now?

Erring on the Side of Theresa Schiavo: Reflections of her Special Guardian ad Litem

The Medicine Show

A Letter to Tony Soprano, Family Caregiver

Harvard (Re)discovers Patients’ Narratives

Thank You Cards for Doctors

Concepts of Therapy and Normal Human Experience

Industry Payola at the FDA

Proof that I Like Penises

Will “Consumer-Driven Health Care” Cure the Health Care Cost Problem?

The Perils of Hyperpluralism

To Be a Mother

Between the Times and the Eternities: On the Very Idea of Online Scholarship

What is
Bioethics Forum?

Add Bioethics Forum to your RSS feeds

Sign up for Bioethics Forum news and updates

From the Hastings Center Report

Save 20%
on new subscriptions to the Hastings Center Report

At The Hastings Center
Contact Us | Privacy | Term

 

  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








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909