Print
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 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." (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 subscribers 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."