Several months ago I wrote about a West Virginia Record article concerning an alleged research conflict of interest at West Virginia University. In that case, researchers were accused of using lawyers’ clients in cases in which there were serving as expert witnesses as subjects for a study that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.
Two weeks ago the New York Times published an article suggesting that drug-related research conflicts of interest may be fairly common. And again it was litigation – this time against Wyeth for selling Premarin and PremPro, two hormone replacement treatments for women – that uncovered the conflict. In 2002 a federal study of hormone replacement therapy was stopped after researchers discovered that the hormones increased risks for breast cancer, heart disease and stroke. The year previous to the federal study Wyeth made $2 billion from the sale of those drugs. To aid sales, Wyeth apparently was arranging to have ghost-written articles produced singing the praises of these treatments. In all 26 such scientific papers appeared in 18 medical journals with no disclosure. The amount of editing done by the “authors” of these articles varied from substantial to minimal.
How widespread is the problem? A New York Times article published this week says: “Recent revelations suggest that the practice is widespread. Dozens of medical education companies across the country draft scientific papers at the behest of drug makers. And placing such papers in medical journals has become a fundamental marketing practice for most of the large pharmaceutical companies.”
A student caught doing the same thing would face serious punishment up to and including expulsion from a school with an honor code. What will happen to these authors? According to Dr. Carl Elliott with the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota, they “never seem to be punished at all.”
If Senator Charles Grassley has his way, that will change. He sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health last week urging them to crack down on the practice. If NIH would punish institutions that fail to address such practices by denying them grants, this practice would stop very quickly.
