Author: Jon Merz
Date: 07-15-04 17:00
from Haavi Morreim:
Source: Wall St. J.
URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108967337655561782,00.html
Date published: July 13th 2004
Study Says Medical Journals
Don't Effectively Monitor
Financial Ties of Authors
By ROBERT TOMSHO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 13, 2004; Page D3
Eight percent of the articles in four prominent medical journals were
co-authored by researchers with undisclosed conflicts of interest, according
to a study by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
At a time when corporate influence on medical research has come under
growing scrutiny, the study by the Washington, D.C., consumer group
questions the effectiveness of such journals' efforts to require researchers
to disclose relationships with pharmaceutical concerns and medical-device
makers.
"There is a distinct trend among some researchers to simply ignore the rules
journals have put in place and journals have very few tools in place to
catch this kind of thing," said Merrill Goozner, the study's lead
researcher.
Although policies vary widely, medical and academic journals generally
require authors to disclose financial ties to parties that might benefit
from or be affected by their research.
The Center looked at articles that appeared between December 2003 and
February 2004 in four journals: The New England Journal of Medicine, the
Journal of the American Medical Association, Environmental Health
Perspectives and Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. The Center focused on
163 articles whose primary authors hadn't disclosed any conflicts of
interests. It then used other databases to look for consulting or other
arrangements that could raise questions.
The potential conflicts uncovered ranged from consulting fees paid to
researchers by companies involved in the study subject, to patents on
technologies that might be affected by the research. For instance, the study
said Frank D. Kolodgie and Renu Virmani, two scientists at the U.S. Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology, failed to disclose their consulting
relationships with 20 companies in the heart-disease treatment field in a
December article in the New England Journal of Medicine about the formation
of plaque in coronary arteries.
The two researchers respond that their prior consulting work had nothing to
do with the research in question. "If they were to have had something to do
with the study, we would have disclosed it," said Mr. Kolodgie, a cell
biologist.
Gregory Curfman, executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,
called the Center's criticism of the two researchers "underwhelming," noting
that their article didn't involve assessments of any drugs or products. He
added that, while the New England Journal's disclosure policies may not be
perfect, "we spend a lot of time on this."
Editors of some of the journals covered said they welcomed the Center's
research. "We really rely upon scrutiny of these disclosure statements by
other scientists and outside organizations," said Tom Goehl, editor in chief
of Environmental Health Perspectives, who added that his editorial board
plans to discuss whether to impose sanctions on researchers who fail to
disclose conflicts.
Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal, said the
results of the study "should concern all of us a lot because there is plenty
of evidence now that the medical literature is seriously biased in all sorts
of ways."
The growing corporate funding of medical research has heightened concerns
about the potential skewing of research. The National Institutes of Health
recently announced plans to tighten rules governing its scientists' ability
to work for drug companies.
Write to Robert Tomsho at rob.tomsho@wsj.com1
Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
|
|
