Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) lands the second blow on Merck, the American drug company. It found that the company did not stop with funding and conducting the Vioxx research but had ghost written the papers for publication in a journal.
In other words, Merck engaged anonymous writers to draft the papers and brought in “respected” researchers from reputed institutions as the lead authors only at a later stage. Apparently these “respected” authors had little to do with the study or drafting of the paper. That is not how it should be. The authors need to be involved in writing the paper from the very beginning.
“Almost identical”
The authors cite an instance where the draft version of one of the Vioxx trials (078) for Alzheimer’s has the first author mentioned as “External author?” The draft and published versions have results that are “almost identical” while there are just “minor differences in language and organisation” in the two. Eight of the 11 authors are employees of Merck.
This trial (078) had found the drug to be “generally well tolerated by the elderly patients in our study, which is consistent with results from previous clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis.”
However, the paper in JAMA looking at the mortality from Vioxx showed that the results of the 078 trial published in a journal was suppressing crucial safety data. That is sufficient reason to believe that the first author only lent his name or had no authority to correct the wrong message.
An Editorial in JAMA states that “the initial draft (in this case paid for by Merck) sets the tone for the manuscript.” But with no changes being made to the results and only minor changes in language, Merck has made a mockery of science.
But what can be said of individuals of repute who lend their names for a fee? They “manifest a behaviour that is unprofessional and demeaning to the medical profession and to scientific research,” states the Editorial in JAMA.
Ghost writing is not a problem restricted to the Vioxx trial or even Merck. Many trials and drug companies use the same ploy. In evidence given at a UK House of Commons select committee, David T. Healy, Professor of psychiatry had stated that 50 per cent of articles dealing with therapeutics were ghost written in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Lancet.
Lay readers misled
By not disclosing a ghost writer in a paper published in a journal, lay readers are led to believe that the “respected” authors have been involved in the manuscript writing right from the beginning.
If disclosing the source of funding or other conflict of interests is becoming an accepted practice, why not admit the role of the ghost writers?
That information will help the readers to give only the required credibility to the paper. A trial funded, conducted and written by a drug company will certainly raise credibility issues. That is precisely what Merck and other drug companies want to avoid.
What is clearly wrong
In reality, medical writers cannot be wished away. “There is nothing wrong with getting help from medical writers, provided they and their source of funding are clearly acknowledged,” noted the Editor of BMJ in the January 2007 issue of the journal.
“What is clearly wrong is writers, academics, or clinicians concealing under their coat tails an army of company spin doctors intent on distorting the scientific record.”
Finally it is for the journals and the drug industry to find a way to acknowledge ghost writers’ contribution, and researchers have to play a more active role in paper preparation and not put their reputations for sale.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Sci Tech
