Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics

Healy, David; Cattell, Dinah

doi:10.1192/bjp.183.1.22

Cited by 182 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It might be thought that, despite publication in the most prestigious journals and under the apparent authorship of the most distinguished academics, clinicians and researchers would find this literature too obviously industry linked and would not be influenced by it. However, the subsequent citation rates for the Pfizer-linked articles were three times higher than that for the articles on Zoloft not linked to Pfizer (Healy and Cattell 2003).…”

Section: Ghostwritingmentioning

confidence: 90%

Manufacturing Consensus

Healy

2006

Cult Med Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that it would be illegal to advertise as or in any way claim your drug to be superior to competitors on the market, which are up to 30 times cheaper. How does a pharmaceutical company market such a product? The answer is to enlist academics to form expert panels to construct guidelines and algorithms, or participate in Delphi panels and other exercises, which can be expected to prove that newer, more costly drugs produce cost savings. These academics do so on the basis of the existing clinical trial evidence-which supposedly the FDA has used to come to its verdict that the newer compound is no better than its competitors. However, where the FDA has seen the raw data, academics later see the published data. In between intervenes a medical writing exercise, which produces the first and most important piece of advertising for any pharmaceutical product-the randomized controlled trial infomercial. This paper explores how pharmaceutical companies manufacture an apparent academic consensus and, in so doing, gives a case study of the recent controversies surrounding the marketing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drugs for adolescent depression.

show abstract

Section: Ghostwritingmentioning

confidence: 90%

Manufacturing Consensus

Healy

2006

Cult Med Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Evidence of the potentially extensive role of ghost writing (i.e., industry-authored publications in which the identified authors may have never actually seen the raw data) in the scientific literature (e.g., Healy, 2006;Healy & Cattell, 2003;Mowatt et al, 2002) highlights the problem of poor access to raw scientific data. Despite a 1999 law ostensibly requiring public disclosure of raw data from NIHfunded studies, all requests for data access to date have been denied (Lenzer, 2006).…”

Section: Philip Zimbardomentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate funding and conflicts of interest: A primer for psychologists.

Pachter¹,

Fox²,

Zimbardo

et al. 2007

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although it is difficult to uncover evidence about such practices, one study found that more than 50% of the articles published on the antidepressant Zoloft between 1998 and 2000 were ghostwritten. Moreover, the ghostwritten articles were published in far more prestigious journals than "normal" articles, were cited significantly more than the others, and gave a more rosy evaluation of Zoloft than the others (Healy and Cattell, 2003; for more on ghost authorship, see Elliott, 2004 andKassirer, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies

Elliott

2008

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the three major elements of typical university conflict-of-interest (COI) policies (i.e., disclosure, management and elimination of conflicts via divestiture or recusal) are likely to be insufficient for screening out many worrisome influences of financial COIs. Current psychological research challenges the effectiveness of disclosure, management plans are unlikely to address the wide range of ways that financial COIs can influence scientific judgment, and it is often impractical to eliminate conflicts. Identifying the limits of these policies highlights the importance of considering alternative strategies, such as encouraging more independently funded research, in order to maintain the integrity of science.

show abstract

Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics

Abstract: The literature profiles and citation rates of industry-linked and non-industry-linked articles differ. The emerging style of authorship in industry-linked articles can deliver good-quality articles, but it raises concerns for the scientific base of therapeutics.

Cited by 182 publications

References 13 publications

Manufacturing Consensus

Manufacturing Consensus

Corporate funding and conflicts of interest: A primer for psychologists.

Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About