Trade associations' joint statement on transparency in the commerical publications trade
The debate following my article has culminated in a very rare, and unaccommodating, joint public statement on transparency (1) by the three foremost trade associations of the commercial publications industry – the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and the European and American Medical Writers Associations (AMWA and EMWA).They have been joined in this statement by the Global Alliance of Public Professionals (GAPP), the most active advocacy group for the trade.
In this statement, these groups have given their official response to a series of specific transparency requests (2) which I made in order to clarify where the trade stood on secrecy and transparency in its development of medical journal articles. The trade chose to meet none of these requests, indicating its commitment to continued secrecy on these aspects of the medical publications business.
In particular, the trade did not agree to reveal any details of the commercial publications plans, scientific platforms, product positioning and key messages underpinning its past, and future, journal articles; nor did it agree to release details about its recruitment and use of “key opinion leaders”; nor details of intellectual property rights; nor any indication of how much money its companies receive from industry clients to plan and develop these articles. All this information is to be remain withheld from the readers of this literature and their patients.
Most remarkably, the trade did not agree even to disclose exactly what it has published. It did not agree to provide simple lists of its published output; it did not agree to disclose any secret ghostwriting it may be aware of in the published journal literature; and it did not agree to encourage writers to disclose such articles, or to waive their confidentiality agreements if they do so.
This affirmation of continued commercial secrecy on these aspects of medical journal literature – made directly to the medical community itself, in a leading medical journal – will be of broad ethical and policy concern. The joint statement ends by claiming the trade has been “working towards” transparency and disclosure for 15 years. There is clearly a long road yet to travel.
On other correspondence, I would like to thank Jay Siwek, Editor of American Family Physician, for his comments.(3) Among Dr Siwek’s many interesting points is that mere disclosure is not a solution to the problem of industry spin, since it does not “decontaminate the content.” I agree. Siwek calls for journals to refuse review articles or editorials from anyone with industry ties, and again I agree – although the greater problem lies, I think, in commercial clinical trials, in which academia has become increasingly assimilated into the commercial enterprise (4,5). Only independent academic research and reporting can guarantee freedom from commercial secrecy and spin. Industry research can be of great value, but whenever it partners with academia, we should move from a culture of small print disclosure to one of conspicuous commercial labeling, as my article describes.
Siwek also makes the point that “Once distorted information makes it into the medical literature, the damage is done: other authors unwittingly incorporate it into other articles, spreading the distortions.” This is true – and to bring my comments full circle, there can be few stronger examples of this than the attempted rebranding of ghostwriting itself. Through continued industry promotion, abetted by the errors of some editors (6), medicine was almost persuaded to accept the trade’s absurd, self-serving, disclosure-based definition, by which even Study 329 does not count as ghostwriting. I hope the risk of that perverse outcome has by virtue of this debate been diminished.
References
1. Rapley A. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-6 Accessed October 4 2016
2. Matheson A. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-4 Accessed October 4 2016
3. Siwek J. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-5 Accessed October 4 2016
4. Matheson A. The disposable author: how pharmaceutical marketing is embraced within medicine's scholarly literature. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016;46:31-7.
6. Laine C, Mulrow CD. Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Ann Intern Med 2005;143: 611-2
Competing interests:
I am a supporter of innovative pharmaceutical research and have affection for, and friendships within, pharmaceutical corporations and also the marketing and publications trade, whose employees I consider to be ethical and professional. As stated in my article, between 1994 and 2012 most of my income came from consultancy and writing services provided to pharmaceutical corporations, either directly or via marketing agencies. In 2015 I acted as a paid expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in a US federal legal action against a drug company.
Rapid Response:
Trade associations' joint statement on transparency in the commerical publications trade
The debate following my article has culminated in a very rare, and unaccommodating, joint public statement on transparency (1) by the three foremost trade associations of the commercial publications industry – the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and the European and American Medical Writers Associations (AMWA and EMWA).They have been joined in this statement by the Global Alliance of Public Professionals (GAPP), the most active advocacy group for the trade.
In this statement, these groups have given their official response to a series of specific transparency requests (2) which I made in order to clarify where the trade stood on secrecy and transparency in its development of medical journal articles. The trade chose to meet none of these requests, indicating its commitment to continued secrecy on these aspects of the medical publications business.
In particular, the trade did not agree to reveal any details of the commercial publications plans, scientific platforms, product positioning and key messages underpinning its past, and future, journal articles; nor did it agree to release details about its recruitment and use of “key opinion leaders”; nor details of intellectual property rights; nor any indication of how much money its companies receive from industry clients to plan and develop these articles. All this information is to be remain withheld from the readers of this literature and their patients.
Most remarkably, the trade did not agree even to disclose exactly what it has published. It did not agree to provide simple lists of its published output; it did not agree to disclose any secret ghostwriting it may be aware of in the published journal literature; and it did not agree to encourage writers to disclose such articles, or to waive their confidentiality agreements if they do so.
This affirmation of continued commercial secrecy on these aspects of medical journal literature – made directly to the medical community itself, in a leading medical journal – will be of broad ethical and policy concern. The joint statement ends by claiming the trade has been “working towards” transparency and disclosure for 15 years. There is clearly a long road yet to travel.
On other correspondence, I would like to thank Jay Siwek, Editor of American Family Physician, for his comments.(3) Among Dr Siwek’s many interesting points is that mere disclosure is not a solution to the problem of industry spin, since it does not “decontaminate the content.” I agree. Siwek calls for journals to refuse review articles or editorials from anyone with industry ties, and again I agree – although the greater problem lies, I think, in commercial clinical trials, in which academia has become increasingly assimilated into the commercial enterprise (4,5). Only independent academic research and reporting can guarantee freedom from commercial secrecy and spin. Industry research can be of great value, but whenever it partners with academia, we should move from a culture of small print disclosure to one of conspicuous commercial labeling, as my article describes.
Siwek also makes the point that “Once distorted information makes it into the medical literature, the damage is done: other authors unwittingly incorporate it into other articles, spreading the distortions.” This is true – and to bring my comments full circle, there can be few stronger examples of this than the attempted rebranding of ghostwriting itself. Through continued industry promotion, abetted by the errors of some editors (6), medicine was almost persuaded to accept the trade’s absurd, self-serving, disclosure-based definition, by which even Study 329 does not count as ghostwriting. I hope the risk of that perverse outcome has by virtue of this debate been diminished.
References
1. Rapley A. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-6 Accessed October 4 2016
2. Matheson A. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-4 Accessed October 4 2016
3. Siwek J. Ghostwriting: the importance of definition and its place in contemporary drug marketing. Rapid Response. BMJ 2016;354:i4578. http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i4578/rr-5 Accessed October 4 2016
4. Matheson A. The disposable author: how pharmaceutical marketing is embraced within medicine's scholarly literature. Hastings Cent Rep. 2016;46:31-7.
5. Matheson A. Attribution, advocacy, disposable authors, corporate ghosts and cultural assimilation: new themes in the ethical critique of commercial medical literature. Medical Writing 2016;25(1)25-30.
http://journal.emwa.org/authors-and-authorship/attribution-advocacy-disp...
6. Laine C, Mulrow CD. Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Ann Intern Med 2005;143: 611-2
Competing interests: I am a supporter of innovative pharmaceutical research and have affection for, and friendships within, pharmaceutical corporations and also the marketing and publications trade, whose employees I consider to be ethical and professional. As stated in my article, between 1994 and 2012 most of my income came from consultancy and writing services provided to pharmaceutical corporations, either directly or via marketing agencies. In 2015 I acted as a paid expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs in a US federal legal action against a drug company.