I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.…
criticises media reports for citing studies and
experts with financial ties
to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties
to the
reader.
If it's improper for the media to withhold this
information, it's equally
improper for us to withhold it in our articles.
It's a
question of correct
attribution: "According to a 2007
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-
controlled trial funded by company X, involving
50
patients, their product
Y ..."
I don't think our medical sources guideline addresses
this point at
present, i.e. that we should name funding sources
in
our attribution. So
that is an area we could do some work on. At
least it
will be clear to
the reader who paid for what.
I think that would make an important difference to our
coverage. It
would not only inform the reader that the sources we're
relying on
have a financial interest in the outcome. It would also
alert the
editors who push to rely on those sources that additional
disinterested sources may be needed too.
A.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: