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

[SlimVirgin]

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.