[Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

[Arlen Beiler]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in
the rest of the way.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
> > <WJhonson at aol.com>
> > wrote:
> > >..
> > > There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were
> > not paid for, by
> > > anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the
> > drug's market outlook.
> > > Being flippant as John was, hardly forwards the
> > conversation.
> >
> > The point I was making is that there is a lot of different
> > types of
> > research, funded by different groups with different
> > agendas.
> >
> > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78
> > interventional
> > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific
> > reviews.
> > Also, they do not dissect the data based on the
> > reputability of the
> > publishing venue.
> >
> > We should only use peer-reviewed research published in
> > reputable
> > journals, which eliminates vast quantities of 'research'.
>
>
>
> We have had a number of red herrings and strawmen in this discussion so
> far:
>
> 1. That this is about editors' POV pushing.
>
> -- It isn't in my case. I don't edit this topic area. What I am concerned
>   about is that we do not appear to follow the publication ethics of
>   the best journalistic and scholarly sources in this field.
>
> 2. That this is an issue associated with poorly sourced studies, and would
>   be resolved by making sure we use reputable sources.
>
> -- This is about peer-reviewed research in the best journals, like The
>   Lancet, JAMA, and so forth. The editors of these journals decided that,
>   as a fundamental point of publishing ethics, they would disclose
>   conflict-of-interest information in all biomedical research articles.
>   The editors of these journals felt this was vital to safeguard the
>   credibility "of the journal, the authors, and of science itself".
>
> 3. That this is only about individual studies, which shouldn't be used as
>   sources anyway, and that the problem is resolved automatically by using
>   systematic reviews.
>
> -- The editors of JAMA, The Lancet, etc. have specifically pointed out -
>   http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html - that "Disclosure of such
>   relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review
>   articles". In other words, reviews are as subject to conflicts of
>   interest as clinical trials. In addition, our guidelines allow citation
>   of individual studies, and many are in fact cited, without available
>   conflict-of-interest information included.
>
> 4. That this standard is about scholarly publishing, and doesn't apply to
>   us as encyclopedists/journalists.
>
> -- The "gold standard" for journalism is the same as for scholarly
>   publishing: If you cite researchers or studies, disclose their
>   conflicts of interests.
>
> 5. That this would inflate the article by adding extraneous detail.
>
> -- We are typically talking about the addition of four words: "sponsored by
>   the manufacturer", "funded by the British Heart Foundation", etc.
>
> 6. That reliable sources mentioning such research do not mention funding,
>   and that therefore we shouldn't either.
>
> -- Many do. Some that do not have been severely criticised for it.
>
> 7. That this would lead editors to add further extraneous POV detail.
>
> -- This is addressed by existing policies and guidelines, which require
>   that cited sources should directly address the article topic. In
>   addition, disclosing conflicts of interest as a matter of course is
>   likely to help placate editors concerned about research bias, thereby
>   reducing the number of disputes initiated by such editors.
>
> 8. That this would lead to our having to report funding sources for
>   research in other areas, such as computing.
>
> -- We take our cues from what reliable sources do. There would be no basis
>   for requiring editors to report funding of cited computing studies,
>   unless there were a well-defined publishing ethics standard in
>   computing, similar to the publishing standard established for biomedical
>   research.
>
> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable
> knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was
> built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance the
> reputation of the publication that provides this information. While our
> reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical journals,
> I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible steps to
> protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the best
> sources.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>