Funding_&_Biases_Need_to_be_Exposed_by_Journals_and_Media

[Guest guest]

>

Funding_ & _Biases_Need_to_be_Exposed_by_Journals_and_Media

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:21:29 +0100

 

>

>

> http://www.gmwatch

> ------

> Here are two issues that badly need addressing:

> 1.News Articles Often Silent on Scientists' and

> Groups' Funding & Biases

> 2.Authors Fail to Disclose Financial Conflicts of

> Interest; Journals Fail to Enforce Disclosure

> Policies

>

> EXCERPT: ...news accounts often fail to identify the

> funding sources of ostensibly independent nonprofit

> organizations that are quoted on health and medical

> issues. For instance, a real group called the

> American Council on Science and Health is largely

> funded by chemcal, food, and agribusiness companies

> and is widely quoted downplaying various risks to

> public health or discrediting studies indicating

> risks to health. In the pages of The New York Times

> it is sometimes blandly cited as a " science advocacy

> group, " a " private health education group, " or a

> " group that describes itself as 400 doctors and

> scientists who release position statements on

> science and the environment. " Elsewhere, the Times

> more helpfully has described the group as a

> " consumer foundation in Manhattan that is in part

> financed by industry, " or as a group that is

> " financed in part by the food industry. "

>

> " If a reporter is going to quote a group like the

> American Council on Science and Health, the Center

> for Consumer Freedom, or other nonprofit groups

> funded by corporations, that reporter should be sure

> to identify the corporations that fund it, " Jacobson

> said. " If a group refuses to disclose its corporate

> funding, journalists should say so. " (item 1)

> --------

> 1.Readers Consider the Source, but Media Don't

> Always Give It

> News Articles Often Silent on Scientists' and

> Groups' Funding & Biases

> CSPI Newsroom, July 7 2004

>

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/press/200407071.html

>

> WASHINGTON--How a reporter describes an expert

> source determines how much credibility a reader

> gives to the expert’s assertion, according to a new

> national survey released today by the Center for

> Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Most

> respondents say that news media should disclose

> whether information in their articles comes from

> scientists or organizations who receive grants or

> funding from corporations.

>

> According to the poll, 59 percent had confidence

> in a hypothetical statement asserting a drug is safe

> when the statement was attributed to a " Harvard

> professor whose research is government supported. "

> When the statement was simply attributed to " a

> Harvard professor, " 48 percent had confidence. 41

> percent had confidence in the statement when it was

> attributed to a " Harvard professor whose research is

> supported by drug companies. " Only 24 percent of

> those surveyed had confidence when the statement was

> attributed to a " Harvard professor who owns stock in

> drug companies. "

>

> " These findings are particularly salient at a

> time when so many researchers are funded by the very

> companies whose products they are studying or

> commenting on, " said CSPI executive director Michael

> F. Jacobson. " Regrettably, the news media do an

> uneven job of disclosing potentially biasing sources

> of funding when quoting scientific researchers or

> reporting their findings. Readers, therefore, can't

> put various reports about medicine or health into

> context. "

>

> As an example, CSPI points to media citations of

> Dr. Graham Emslie, a professor of psychiatry at the

> University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center who

> has received research funding and consulting fees

> from numerous drug companies, including those that

> make antidepressants such as Prozac (made by Eli

> Lilly) and Paxil (GlaxoSmithKline). Emslie is

> widely quoted supporting the use of those drugs in

> young people. While The Washington Post reliably

> discloses Emslie's financial ties to drug makers or

> notes that his research is conducted on their

> behalf, other media outlets often identify Emslie

> only as a professor, researcher, or study author,

> and less frequently disclose his ties to the drug

> makers whose products he studies.

>

> The CSPI survey also tested respondents'

> confidence in a statement from a hypothetical

> organization called the National Committee on

> Science indicating that " the pesticide is safe. "

> When that group was identified as a " nonprofit group

> that consists of 400 scientists and doctors, " 71

> percent of those surveyed were very or somewhat

> confident in the statement. 58 percent had

> confidence when the group was identified just as " a

> nonprofit group, " and 53 percent had confidence in

> the statement when the group was identified as a

> " nonprofit group that is largely funded by the

> government. " When the group was identified as

> " largely funded by chemical and other companies, "

> only 33 percent were confident in the statement

> about the pesticide.

>

> According to CSPI, news accounts often fail to

> identify the funding sources of ostensibly

> independent nonprofit organizations that are quoted

> on health and medical issues. For instance, a real

> group called the American Council on Science and

> Health is largely funded by chemical, food, and

> agribusiness companies and is widely quoted

> downplaying various risks to public health or

> discrediting studies indicating risks to health. In

> the pages of The New York Times it is sometimes

> blandly cited as a " science advocacy group, " a

> " private health education group, " or a " group that

> describes itself as 400 doctors and scientists who

> release position statements on science and the

> environment. " Elsewhere, the Times more helpfully

> has described the group as a " consumer foundation in

> Manhattan that is in part financed by industry, " or

> as a group that is " financed in part by the food

> industry. "

>

> " If a reporter is going to quote a group like the

> American Council on Science and Health, the Center

> for Consumer Freedom, or other nonprofit groups

> funded by corporations, that reporter should be sure

> to identify the corporations that fund it, " Jacobson

> said. " If a group refuses to disclose its corporate

> funding, journalists should say so. "

>

> " The best journalism occurs when the media give

> complete disclosures about their sources and their

> financial arrangements, " said Trudy Lieberman,

> president of the Association of Health Care

> Journalists. " Anything less cheats the readers and

> viewers. "

>

> The survey of 1,000 randomly selected adults was

> conducted by TNS Express Omnibus, from May 26 to May

> 30, 2004. The poll’s margin of error is plus or

> minus 3.2 percent.

>

> How the news media and medical journals report

> financial conflicts of interest among quoted experts

> and study authors is among the topics to be

> addressed at a July 12 conference organized by

> CSPI's Integrity in Science Project.

>

> For the record, the Center for Science in the

> Public Interest is a nonprofit organization that

> advocates for improved nutrition, food-safety, and

> pro-health alcohol policies. It is largely funded

> by some 850,000 rs to its Nutrition Action

> Healthletter, and it receives some foundation

> support as well. CSPI discloses its foundation

> donors on its web site. CSPI takes no funding from

> corporations and no government grants.

> -------

> 2.Report Faults Scientific Journals on Financial

> Disclosure

> CSPI Says Authors Fail to Disclose Financial

> Conflicts of Interest; Journals Fail to Enforce

> Disclosure Policies

> http://www.cspinet.org/new/200407123.html

>

> Several leading medical and science journals fail to

> enforce their own policies for disclosing financial

> conflicts of interest among contributing authors,

> according to a study released today by the nonprofit

> Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

> The study examined 163 articles in the New England

> Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the

> American Medical Association (JAMA), Environmental

> Health Perspectives (EHP), and Toxicology and

> Applied Pharmacology (TAP).

>

> It identified at least 13 articles where authors did

> not disclose relevant conflicts of interest that

> should have been disclosed according to the

> journals' policies. CSPI found another 11 articles

> where there were undisclosed conflicts of interest

> that might not have directly related to the subject

> at hand, but should have been disclosed

> nevertheless.

>

> Some of the unpublished conflicts of interest

> include:

>

> *a University of Arkansas College of Medicine

> professor, Dr. John Shaughnessy, published a NEJM

> article outlining the potential efficacy of a

> treatment for multiple myeloma, but did not disclose

> that he intended to apply for a patent on the

> underlying technology. He also failed to disclose

> that he is a paid consultant for drug companies

> developing vaccines for the condition.

>

> *a Procter & Gamble scientist, William Owens, was

> only identified in EHP as an official of the

> Organization for Economic Co-operation and

> Development in an article that validated a toxicity

> test that would likely be used on various P & G

> products. There was no disclosure of Owens'

> employment with Procter & Gamble in this article,

> even though it was known to EHP editors.

>

> *two scientists at the U.S. Armed Forces Institute

> of Pathology, Frank D. Kolodgie and Renu Virmani,

> published an article in NEJM about the formation of

> plaque in coronary arteries, but did not disclose

> their consulting relationships with over 20

> companies in the heart disease treatment field,

> including Medtronic, Guidant, Boston Scientific, and

> Novartis.

>

> *a National Institutes of Health senior scientist

> published a study in JAMA on predictors of kidney

> disease, but did not disclose his consulting

> relationships with Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb,

> GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer, all of which sell

> products whose marketing could benefit from the

> insights gleaned from that study.

>

> " Published research that fails to disclose authors'

> ties to drug companies threatens the credibility of

> scientific journals and rightly undermines public

> confidence in studies about the safety or efficacy

> of various drugs or chemicals, " said Merrill

> Goozner, director of the Integrity in Science

> Project at CSPI and the author of the study.

>

> Nondisclosure of financial conflicts of interest was

> a problem at all four journals, but JAMA had the

> highest rate of nondisclosure of conflicts at 11.3

> percent (six out of 53 articles). The undisclosed

> conflicts in JAMA ranged from consulting fees from

> companies immediately involved in the subject of the

> study to authors holding patents on technologies

> that may one day prove valuable because of

> information contained in the study. EHP had a

> nondisclosure rate of 8.6 percent (three of 35

> articles), TAP had a nondisclosure rate of 6.1

> percent (two of 33 articles), and NEJM had the

> lowest rate of nondisclosure at 4.8 percent (two of

> 42 studies examined). CSPI typically researched

> only the first and last of the authors cited for

> each article, and only when no disclosure statement

> was published for either author, so there are likely

> to be undisclosed conflicts among the other authors

> not researched.

>

> CSPI recommends that journal editors require authors

> to disclose any financial arrangements they have had

> with private firms within the past three years,

> regardless of whether those arrangements relate to

> the subject of the article, and that the conflicts

> be published if they are in any way related to the

> article’s subject. CSPI also says that authors

> should be required to disclose any patent

> applications, or intentions to apply for any

> patents. To encourage authors to comply with

> journals’ policies, CSPI also recommends that

> editors adopt strong sanctions for failing to

> disclose conflicts of interest, such as a three-year

> ban on publication imposed on authors who fail to

> make complete disclosures.

>

> " Some of the blame for the failure to disclose these

> conflicts rests with the individual scientists, who

> clearly feel comfortable withholding fairly glaring

> conflicts, " Goozner said. " But much of the blame

> must rest with the journal editors themselves, who,

> for the most part, have created disclosure policies

> that too narrowly define what conflicts are

> relevant. "