Re: Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry
The drug industry is similarly harmful as the tobacco industry
It is to be welcomed that the editors of the BMJ and some other journals have decided that they will no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry (1). As exactly the same arguments as those provided in the editorial (1) apply also to the drug industry, the next step should be to no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the drug industry. I use the same wording as in the editorial:
Biases and research misconduct are often impossible to detect (2) and the source of funding can influence the outcomes of studies in invisible ways (2,3).
The drug industry, far from advancing knowledge, has used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products. Drugs kill around 200,000 people in the United States every year (2), half of them even though they take their drugs correctly (4), whereas tobacco kills around 440,000 (5), the only difference being that drugs can sometimes save lives, too.
The egregious behaviour of these companies is continuing and is likely to continue into the future. In fact, the organised crime in the drug industry seems to have increased (2).
The cigarette is the single most deadly consumer product ever made, and it remains widely available and aggressively marketed. Drugs are the second most deadly consumer product ever made and they are aggressively marketed, in a way which often involves fraud and corruption of doctors (2).
By refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry the editors affirm their fundamental commitment not to allow our journals to be used in the service of an industry that continues to perpetuate the most deadly disease epidemic of our times. The second most deadly man-made epidemic of our times is prescription drugs (2).
The BMJ’s former editor, Richard Smith, has suggested that journals should stop publishing industry sponsored trials; instead, the protocols, results and the full dataset should be made available on regulated websites, and journals could concentrate on critically describing them (6). I agree.
1 Godlee F, Malone R Timmis A, et al. Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. BMJ 2013;347:f5193.
2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted health care. London: Radcliffe Publications, 2013.
3 Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033.
4 Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000;284:483-5.
Rapid Response:
Re: Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry
The drug industry is similarly harmful as the tobacco industry
It is to be welcomed that the editors of the BMJ and some other journals have decided that they will no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the tobacco industry (1). As exactly the same arguments as those provided in the editorial (1) apply also to the drug industry, the next step should be to no longer consider for publication any study that is partly or wholly funded by the drug industry. I use the same wording as in the editorial:
Biases and research misconduct are often impossible to detect (2) and the source of funding can influence the outcomes of studies in invisible ways (2,3).
The drug industry, far from advancing knowledge, has used research to deliberately produce ignorance and to advance its ultimate goal of selling its deadly products. Drugs kill around 200,000 people in the United States every year (2), half of them even though they take their drugs correctly (4), whereas tobacco kills around 440,000 (5), the only difference being that drugs can sometimes save lives, too.
The egregious behaviour of these companies is continuing and is likely to continue into the future. In fact, the organised crime in the drug industry seems to have increased (2).
The cigarette is the single most deadly consumer product ever made, and it remains widely available and aggressively marketed. Drugs are the second most deadly consumer product ever made and they are aggressively marketed, in a way which often involves fraud and corruption of doctors (2).
By refusing to publish research funded by the tobacco industry the editors affirm their fundamental commitment not to allow our journals to be used in the service of an industry that continues to perpetuate the most deadly disease epidemic of our times. The second most deadly man-made epidemic of our times is prescription drugs (2).
The BMJ’s former editor, Richard Smith, has suggested that journals should stop publishing industry sponsored trials; instead, the protocols, results and the full dataset should be made available on regulated websites, and journals could concentrate on critically describing them (6). I agree.
1 Godlee F, Malone R Timmis A, et al. Journal policy on research funded by the tobacco industry. BMJ 2013;347:f5193.
2 Gøtzsche PC. Deadly medicines and organised crime: How big pharma has corrupted health care. London: Radcliffe Publications, 2013.
3 Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033.
4 Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000;284:483-5.
5 CDC Fact Sheet - Tobacco-Related Mortality. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/to... (accessed 17 Oct 2013).
6 Smith R, Roberts I. Patient safety requires a new way to publish clinical trials. PLoS Clin Trials
2006;1(1):e6.
Competing interests: No competing interests