Published 24 February 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b764
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b764

Letters

Reframing relations with Pharma

An insider writes

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

As a medical doctor working as an epidemiologist and clinical researcher in a contract research organisation, I am a privileged witness and actor in some of the debated misbehaviours.¹

Part of my work is to design seed studies or even crude prescription buying studies, which seem to be standard practice for expensive medical devices or prostheses. Regulatory provisions against such practices exist in EU member countries. Nevertheless, people like me are paid to make these studies look scientifically honourable, and they unfailingly pass all the required boards and committees.

I also do a lot of ghost writing. Sometimes I report good quality studies to which I am proud to contribute, albeit anonymously. Yet, too often, I write so called reviews, amounting to mere panegyrics of the discussed drugs, or I report poorly designed and implemented "epidemiologic" studies, bearing gross biases. Many of the (paid) signing authors of these papers do . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Relationships with the drug industry: More regulation, greater transparency

Harlan M Krumholz and Joseph S Ross
BMJ 2009 338: b211. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A painful case of cello scrotum?

Adam Jacobs
bmj.com, 27 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Another insider writes

Martin J Toal
bmj.com, 27 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Ghost busting

Elizabeth Wager
bmj.com, 2 Mar 2009 [Full text]

An insider responds

Anonymous respondent
bmj.com, 3 Mar 2009 [Full text]

Re: An insider responds

Martin Toal
bmj.com, 4 Mar 2009 [Full text]

Re: An insider responds

Adam Jacobs
bmj.com, 4 Mar 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>