Rapid Responses to:

OBSERVATIONS: Lisa M Schwartz, Steven Woloshin, and Ray Moynihan Who’s watching the watchdogs? BMJ 2008; 337: a2535 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Watching the Watchdogs: Guilt by Association

Thomas R Linden, Nortin Hadler, Jean Folkerts   (28 November 2008)

Journalists must recognize that drug companies want to win their favour

Joe Collier   (5 December 2008)

Authors thank you

Ray N Moynihan, Lisa M. Schwatrz, Steven Woloshin   (7 December 2008)

Watching the Watchdogs: Guilt by Association 28 November 2008
Thomas R Linden, Professor U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3365, Nortin Hadler, Jean Folkerts Send response to journal: Re: Watching the Watchdogs: Guilt by Association	Schwartz and colleagues in their article “Who’s watching the watchdogs?” engage in a pernicious form of journalism by invoking guilt by association and innuendo.[1] The authors imply that a professor holding a faculty position partly endowed by a pharmaceutical company, ipso facto, is beholden to the industry. In their article they write that the Glaxo Wellcome Distinguished Professorship in Medical Journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was “created by a grant from the company worth $330000.” In reality, the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication created the position. The Glaxo gift was matched with a contribution of $167,000 by the University of North Carolina to endow the professorship, a fact not mentioned by the authors. The authors did note correctly that the Glaxo Wellcome Distinguished Professor is a salaried employee of the university. The holder of that professorship, Tom Linden, receives no compensation from Glaxo Smith Kline or any other pharmaceutical company. Furthermore, this endowed chair was created prior to Professor Linden’s recruitment. As Schwartz and colleagues also noted, the School of Journalism and Mass Communication provides a minority medical journalism scholarship funded by Pfizer, Inc. The authors neglected to mention that Pfizer has no input into the selection of recipients or their curricula or activities. Moreover, no corporate entity has any say in medical journalism curricula or any aspect of the UNC Medical and Science Journalism Program. If the authors had spoken with our graduate students or had reviewed the medical journalism course syllabus, posted on the Web,[2] they would have seen that medical journalism ethics is an integral part of our introductory medical journalism course. The implication that we “could send a symbolic message to students and engender a subtle sense of loyalty to the industry” relies solely on guilt by association and not on facts. We are not shills for the pharmaceutical industry or any other interest group. We are aware of the pitfalls of conflict of interest and thwart such with transparency, peer review and conscience. We teach our students to skeptically evaluate all medical and pharmaceutical claims with the aim of getting to the truth. We strictly follow the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.[3] As the SPJ code demands, we teach students to seek truth and report it, to minimize harm, to act independently and “to be accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.” We hope that the editors and contributors at the British Medical Journal do the same. Tom Linden, M.D. Director, Medical & Science Journalism Program Glaxo Wellcome Distinguished Professor of Medical Journalism School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Nortin M. Hadler, M.D. MACP, FACR, FACOEM Member, Advisory Board, Medical & Science Journalism Program Professor of Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jean Folkerts, Ph.D. Dean and Alumni Distinguished Professor School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1 Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Moynihan R. Medicine and the Media: Who’s watching the watchdogs? BMJ 2008;337:a2535. 2 http://www.unc.edu/~trl/syllabi/560.html, accessed November 25, 2008. 3 http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp, accessed November 25, 2008. Competing interests: None declared
Journalists must recognize that drug companies want to win their favour 5 December 2008
Joe Collier, emeritus professor of medicines policy St George’s, London SW12 0RE Send response to journal: Re: Journalists must recognize that drug companies want to win their favour	Schwartz et al hit the nail on the head, and for that - congratulations. The pharmaceutical industry’s influence on all those involved in the provision of medicines is persistent and pervasive. Indeed it is this overwhelming and orchestrated power that makes the industry such a threat. It is natural for drug companies to wish to include ‘lay’ journalists amongst those they try to influence. And, no doubt, if asked about this activity drug companies would not deny how they woo the lay media. The provision of grants, support, gifts and/or prizes are standard mechanisms companies use for winning favours and it would seem totally reasonable for Schwartz et al to bring this practice to our attention, to point out the problems it can raise, and to propose solutions. Drug companies court journalists knowingly and as part of their modus operandi. Journalists must recognise what is going on and if they choose to receive monies should be prepared to justify their action(s). They should not be so naive as to believe that such generosity does not influence their judgement and so what they tell their readers. ‘Who’s watching the watchdogs?’ is the sort of article that should be applauded - it should not be seen as anti-industry but pro truth and openness. Competing interests: None declared
Authors thank you 7 December 2008
Ray N Moynihan, visiting editor BMJ Melbourne, Australia, Lisa M. Schwatrz, Steven Woloshin Send response to journal: Re: Authors thank you	We would like to thank the authors from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for their response to our article, but would respectfully disagree that we had engaged in a “pernicious form of journalism by invoking guilt by association and innuendo.” Our article explicitly cites Tom Linden telling us that “sponsors had no input into the programme”, and in relation to the funding from both drug companies we state: “there is no suggestion that this sponsorship has influenced the university’s curriculum”. However, we stand by our opinion that drug company sponsorship of journalism education may come at a price - as it does with medical education - in that “we think that it could send a symbolic message to students and engender a subtle sense of loyalty to the industry.” We also welcome the media reactions to our article (1), and the ensuing public debate about the relationships between medical journalism and the industries journalists cover. The need for this debate was underscored by the report, just days after publication of our BMJ article, that the host of a popular American radio program received over $1 million from GlaxoSmithKline, and other pharmaceutical companies for lectures promoting their products. According to Senator Charles Grassley, whose congressional committee is investigating conflicts of interest related to the drug industry, "we know the drug companies are throwing huge amounts of money at medical researchers, and there’s no clear-cut way to know how much and exactly where…Now it looks like the same thing is happening in journalism.”(2) Lisa M Schwartz, Steven Woloshin, Ray Moynihan (1) Roni Caryn Rabin, Conflicts of Interest May Ensnare Journalists, Too; New York Times, November 21, 2008 (2) Gardiner Harris, Radio Host Has Drug Company Ties; New York Times, November 21, 2008 Competing interests: None declared