Gordon Moran
Editorial Conflicts of Interest
and Problems Relating to the Correction
of Scholarly Error
Despite the often-repeated, rhetorical phrase, “Science is self-correcting”,
there are various obstacles to the correction of scholarly error. These include
conflicts of interest among scholars. And as corporate financial ties to
universities become more widespread and entrenched,
conflict of interest has become an increasingly major problem.
One very serious aspect of conflict of interest
involves scholars, recognized experts in their fields, who have financial ties
to large, powerful drug companies. At the same time, they might serve as
editors or members of editorial boards of the leading journals in their
academic disciplines, and as members of Advisory Committees for government
agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In
addition to editorial responsibilities, these scholars might also serve as
secret peer review referees who recommend which scholarly articles should be
published or rejected.
With the recall of many drugs from the market
because of dangerous (even lethal) side effects, it becomes obvious that many
scholarly errors occur in the field of medicine, with long periods of time, in
many cases, before the errors are corrected. These medicines received FDA
approval, but as Sheldon Krimsky [2003] has pointed out, many scholars on FDA committees have
conflicts of interest. For instance, regarding one study, he writes,
USA Today reported
that 'more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the
safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the
pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions. [p. 96]
In general, scholars are not eager to publicize
their specific conflicts of interest. Some Internet study organizations,
including VERACARE, and the Integrity in Science Watch Database, compile and
discuss such conflict of interest information. From these sources, it becomes
possible to document
substantial editorial conflicts of interest situations in many specific fields
of medicine, ranging from HIV-AIDS research to bipolar psychiatric studies, and
to cancer research.
A recent case, discussed in the
It turns out that the NEJM editor-in-chief,
Jeffrey Drazen, has, according to the Integrity in
Science database, financial ties with many drug companies, including
GlaxoSmithKline as well. This situation has an ironic twist. Krimsky [2003] lauds and commends NEJM as the scientific
journal taking the lead in dealing with conflict of interest situations. He states
that it had been “at the vanguard of setting ethical standards in publication [...]”
(p. 172) Authors of manuscripts submitted for publication in NEJM are supposed
to reveal conflicts of interest related to the
contents of the manuscript. But, based on the contents of “NEJM Reviewer with
Conflicts Leaked Damaging Study to Drug Firm”, it does not seem that similar
revelations of conflicts of interest are demanded of the journal's secret peer
review referees. Nor of their editors, for that matter.
Among the academic rhetoric relating to peer review, one of the main claims is that peer review
helps provide “quality control” for studies that are published. In the NEJM-Haffner case, however, it seems that, more than quality
control, peer review tended to help provide damage control for a
specific drug company.
References
Krimsky S. (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted
Biomedical Research?,
Posted: April 29, 2008
Scienza e Democrazia/Science and Democracy