Professor asked to 'author' a ghostwritten research paper

[Guest guest]

" Zeus " <info

 

Professor asked to 'author' a ghostwritten research paper

Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:41:31 +0100

 

 

 

 

How I was asked to 'author' a ghostwritten research paper.

By Adriane Fugh-Berman

 

Thursday April 21, 2005

The Guardian

 

Recently, the House of Commons health select committee looked at the

submission of ghostwritten articles to medical journals. Witnesses

from two pharmaceutical groups, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca,

" strongly denied that ghostwriting was practised in their respective

companies " .

 

But such work can be hired out. Last summer, I was asked by RxComms, a

British medical communication company, to author a review of

interactions between herbs and warfarin (a generic anticoagulant

prescribed to prevent strokes or blood clots). Well, not " author " ,

exactly. The usual practice is for a complete article to be supplied;

all I would have to do was review it and sign it off.

 

Months later, I received a completed, 2,848-word draft, with an

abstract, references, and a table, ready for submission to a journal,

with my name on it. A note asked me to return it with any changes

within seven days.

 

I asked why AstraZeneca, sponsor of the article, was funding a

manuscript that mentioned none of its products, and I was informed by

RxComms that the paper was part of a series meant to highlight

problems with warfarin - in particular, " warfarin's high interaction

potential, which can give rise to problems with anticoagulation

control " . It seemed to me that the article was intended to help

AstraZeneca lay the groundwork for a new drug, ximelagatran, to

compete with warfarin.

 

Many articles in medical journals are ghostwritten to order for drug

companies, often by writers for medical communication companies, who

appear to be acting as intermediaries to distance drug companies from

the articles. Faculty members are recruited to have their names appear

as authors. The arrangements are made with the communication companies.

 

With ghostwritten articles, the author may opt to contribute, but if

changes are not advantageous to the sponsoring company, the article

may be ditched. We don't know how many of these articles infest

medical journals, unbeknown to their editors. Most bona fide journals

require authors to disclose conflicts of interest, but editors cannot

enforce honesty.

 

Drug advertising to physicians is aimed at influencing prescribing,

but at least is a recognisable form of persuasion. More insidiously,

drug companies sponsor many talks at medical meetings or conferences.

In the US, it is so common for a lecturer to be in the stable of a

drug company that, when invited to speak, I am often asked which firm

usually sponsors my talks.

 

I declined the offer from RxComms, but another " author " was willing to

do it. A few weeks later, a manuscript with alarming similarities was

sent to me for peer review by the Journal of General Internal

Medicine. On being told I believed that the paper was ghostwritten,

the journal editors rejected it, told the " author " not to submit a

paper again, and informed the World Association of Medical Editors.

RxComms says this was a different manuscript and was actually written

by the person who submitted it, but it had been sent to me in error.

AstraZeneca has also denied that the article was ghostwritten. The

company says it has strict guidelines, insisting that authors make

substantial contributions to these kinds of articles and take

responsibility for the contents: " Most pharmaceutical companies,

including AstraZeneca, use professional writers to assist in

manuscript development, when the named authors lack the time or

expertise to produce a well-written publication. "

 

I have found this practice is standard within the industry.

" Publication development " is an important part of marketing, and

entire conferences on the subject are held. Conference talks may

promote available drugs, or be part of a campaign for medications not

yet available. Drug companies spend three times as much on promotion

before a drug is launched than in the year after launch. These efforts

may include sending " key opinion leaders " on speaking tours and

seeding journals with articles that stress the importance of a

targeted disease, or problems with a competitor's drug.

 

Medical education companies are often hired by drug companies to put

together conferences, some of which I have spoken at. Filler talks

such as mine on herbs and dietary supplements act as cover for message

talks that advance the sponsor's goals. " Message talks " are not

obviously biased and often reference the targeted drug merely as one

of several choices. The more unbiased a talk seems, the more useful it

may be.

 

Doctors trust articles in journals and rely on the experts whose names

adorn them. If they do not know the origin of those articles, then the

system needs reforming to eliminate both ghost and guest authors, and

to ensure that marketing pieces cannot masquerade as academic articles.

 

· Adriane Fugh-Berman is associate professor in the department of

physiology and biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine

 

forwarded by

Zeus Information Service

Alternative Views on Health

www.zeusinfoservice.com

 

All information, data and material contained, presented or provided

herein is for general information purposes only and is not to be

construed as reflecting the knowledge or opinion of Zeus Information

Service.

Subscribe Free/Un: info

Feel free to forward far and wide...