Who Funds Research by Spanish Dermatologists? Comparative Analysis of Articles Published in 2008

Psychology’s medicalization of male baldness

“…This is supported by one baldness study’s candid admission that commercial influence means one will “ present a [less] balance[d] picture of the likely effects of treatment ” (Passchier et al, 1989: 330). Most studies had commercial conflicts of interest ( n = 29; 78%), although 11 of these studies did not disclose, confirming previous reports that regulation (such as disclosure) is minimal or ineffective (Anstey, 2018; Batalla et al, 2011; Cosgrove and Wheeler, 2013; John et al, 2019; Stoll et al, 2020). One common commercial funder of the research is Merck who have created fake academic journals, have forced researchers to sign gagging clauses and have made extensive efforts to hide product side effects (Edwards, 2009; Goldacre, 2012; Levine, 2019).…”

“…As not all journals required these disclosures, closer inspection of the funding source, the author’s profiles and affiliations was conducted. In view of even subtle commercial influences in dermatology being (a) common (Batalla et al, 2011; Perlis et al, 2005), (b) leading to more commercially favorable results (Batalla et al, 2011; Perlis et al, 2005; Williams et al, 2006), and (c) yet often not being disclosed (Anstey, 2018; Batalla et al, 2011) and in line with best practice dermatological standards (Anstey, 2018; British Association of Dermatologists, 2016b), studies were deemed to likely have a conflict of interest if explicit evidence suggested at least one (co)author (or co(author)’s affiliated employer or the study’s commercial funders) provided baldness interventions.…”

“…The medicalization of baldness may arise indirectly from commercial conflicts of interest where the framing of baldness, the implications, and the conclusions in research are more commercially favorable. Analyses of dermatology research (Batalla et al, 2011; Perlis et al, 2005; Williams et al, 2006) and other research (Cosgrove and Wheeler, 2013; Lundh et al, 2017) shows commercial influences are significantly related to results and recommendations that promote commercial interventions. This is supported by one baldness study’s candid admission that commercial influence means one will “ present a [less] balance[d] picture of the likely effects of treatment ” (Passchier et al, 1989: 330).…”