Academics and Ghostwriters?
By Kim-Jenna Jurriaans
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently published a report suggesting that academic researchers have lent their names to corporately funded research articles that they have not written. The report focuses on guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to the Merck drug Rofecoxib, or Vioxx, a painkiller used for the relief of osteoarthritis and other conditions.
For the publication of clinical trial results, the report says, “Documents were found describing Merck employees working either independently or in collaboration with medical publishing companies to prepare manuscripts and subsequently recruiting external, academically affiliated investigators to be authors.” These “recruits” were often listed first or second in lists of authors that on occasion mentioned Merck employees as coauthors or researchers. In other instances, articles failed to disclose any significant contribution by Merck employees.
In the case of review articles, the vast majority of recruited authors were listed as sole writers, the report says. Concerns around guest authorship are fortified by additional research presented in a second JAMA article that questions the validity of Merck research analysis and data published.
The four authors of the report, all former consultants in a Vioxx related lawsuit against Merck, also investigated the general disclosure of Merck funding in the published articles. While 92 percent of the relevant articles that dealt with clinical trials on Rofecoxib disclosed financial support by Merck, only 50 percent of the published product reviews mentioned Merck sponsorship.
Documents also showed medical publishers, like Scientific Therapeutics Information, taking on the contracted job of preparing manuscripts for Rofecoxib.
In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, two alleged guest writers—one a professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, the other a former faculty member at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center— denied all accusations of guest or ghost authorship. Merck, in turn, disputed the validity and objectivity of the report, alleging misrepresentation and a lack of context.
Commenting on the issues raised by both JAMA articles, JAMA editors Catherine DeAngelis and Phil Fontanarosa reminded readers that the principle “first, do no harm” is not limited to physicians, but extends to all involved in medical research, education, and publication: “When integrity in medical science or practice is impugned or threatened—such as by the influence of industry—patients, clinicians, and researchers are all at risk for harm, and public trust in research is jeopardized.”
|