http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4552509.stm
Med journals 'too close to firms'
Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arms of drug firms,
says an ex-British Medical Journal editor.
Dr Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ for 13 years, criticised the
journals' reliance on drug company advertising.
Writing in Public Library of Science Medicine, he also said journals
were undermined by relying on clinical trials funded by the drugs
industry.
The BMJ said a debate was needed, but drug industry representatives
rejected the criticisms.
Dr Smith, who is now chief executive of healthcare firm UnitedHealth
Europe, said the most conspicuous example of the dependence was
reliance on advertising, but he added it was "the least corrupting form
of dependence" since it was there for all to see.
Dr Smith said the publication of industry-funded trials was a much
bigger problem.
-----
There is certainly a need for more transparency, it is something we
are working on
Dr Fiona Godlee, of the British Medical Journal
-----
He said: "For a drug company a favourable trial is worth thousands of
pages of advertising, which is why a company will sometimes spend
upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial for worldwide
distribution."
And Dr Smith argued, unlike ads, these trials were seen as the highest
form of evidence.
"Fortunately from the point of view of the companies which fund these
trials - but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who
publish them - they rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the
companies' products."
He said editors are put under further pressure by the demands of
producing a profit.
"An editor may thus face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest -
publish a trial that will bring in $100,000 (£54,000) of profit, or
meet the end of year budget by firing an editor."
Publicly-funded trials
He said there needed to be more publicly-funded trials - about two
thirds are currently paid for by the industry - or journals should stop
publishing such trials.
BMJ editor Dr Fiona Godlee said she agreed with much of what Mr Smith
said.
"There is certainly a need for more transparency, it is something we
are working on.
"The whole issue about advertising is something journals are
uncomfortable about.
"On the one hand we are saying clean up your act, while we are fairly
dependent on the advertising for our survival.
"What we need now is a debate about the issue."
But Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical
Industry, said his criticisms were unfounded.
"There would be an outcry if a pharmaceutical company tried to put
pressure on.
"And we must also remember these trials are peer reviewed."
He also added it was not realistic to think trials could be funded form
public money.
-----
TC