|
|
On August 3, Melody Peterson reported in the New York Times that Dr. Charles Nemeroff, head of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory School of Medicine (Atlanta) has been rebuked by colleagues for failing to disclose his substantial financial ties to drug companies whose products he promoted in a review article in Nature Neuroscience. Last week, Nature Publishing Group, one of the last publishers of science journals to do so, announced that it would require authors who review articles to disclose any financial ties to the products they evaluate.
Today’s New York Times editorial applauds the policy change, noting that requiring authors of research articles to disclose their financial conflicts of interest “has always made sense because industry financing is often associated with pro-industry findings.”
Indeed, if a Times reporter were to examine the actual data from clinical trials submitted to the FDA, and compare the results with the claims made in published journal articles and reviews, the public would learn that almost all of the published journal articles praising the safety and superior efficacy of the new psychotropic “wonder drugs” were written by doctors who, like Dr. Nemeroff, had considerable financial ties to the drugs’ manufacturers. And they would learn that the actual data show considerable risks of harm that have been concealed.
For example, undisclosed to readers, an editorial in the April 10, 2002 Journal of the American Medical Association, was written by a psychiatrist who served on the advisory board of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, the company whose antidepressant drug, Zoloft, was being evaluated.
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
(AHRP) http://www.ahrp.org
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
Tel: 212-595-8974
e-mail: veracare@ahrp.org
|
|
|
A troubling case of hidden financial conflicts has forced the publisher of some of the world’s most influential scientific journals to expand its editorial disclosure policies. Last week the Nature Publishing Group, part of Macmillan Publishers, announced that it would henceforth require the authors of review articles to disclose any financial ties to the products they evaluate. It was a welcome if belated step to close a loophole in the journals’ previous disclosure policies, which covered only research reports and not the review articles that evaluate progress in a particular field.
The new policy stems from a conflict of interest case last year involving a review article in Nature Neuroscience that evaluated experimental treatments for depression. As reported by Melody Petersen in The Times last month, the lead author of that article had significant financial stakes in three of the therapies he mentioned favorably. He held the patent on a lithium patch that he described as promising, owned 60,000 shares of stock in a small company whose drug he described as effective, and was a board member and recipient of stock options and consulting fees from another small company whose product he cited. Yet the journal had not asked him to disclose any conflicts of interest, and the scientist had not volunteered the information.
Requiring the authors of original research articles to disclose their financial conflicts has always made sense because industry financing is often associated with pro-industry findings. The case may be even stronger for requiring disclosure from the authors of review articles, which purport to weigh the value of one therapy against another and are, by their very nature, opinionated. Having come so far, the Nature journals may now want to extend their disclosure policy to cover letters as well, given their combative nature and potential influence.
Medical journals have made substantial efforts in recent years to reduce the potential for commercial bias. Full disclosure of financial ties is a powerful disinfectant, but when the conflicts loom too large, the journals should simply shop around for a less conflicted author.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
|
