[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

SlimVirgin slimvirgin at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 10:30:40 UTC 2010

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
> 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.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list