Big Publisher Shills for Big Pharma
Posted by Jesse Reynolds May 5, 2009
Biopolitical Times
The ethical shortcomings of pharmaceutical giant Merck are no secret. These have perhaps been most evident around its blockbuster arthritis medication Vioxx, which Merck continued to promote heavily, and by extremely dubious means (1, 2), in the face of mounting evidence of serious adverse affects. We now know that Vioxx contributed to tens of thousands of deaths from heart attacks.
New seedy details are emerging from a class action lawsuit in Australia. For example, the company drew up an enemies list of doctors and researchers critical of Vioxx, who would be "neutralised" through professional and personal intimidation.
Yet another disturbing revelation is that Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of primary scientific literature, created an entirely new, seemingly peer-reviewed journal after receiving payments from Merck. According to The Scientist, Merck paid an undisclosed amount of cash to Elsevier to launch the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which largely contained content favorable to Merck's products - particularly Vioxx - but did not disclose the sponsorship.
Bob Grant of The Scientist writes:
At the same time, this may be merely another step along a dark path. In recent years, too many publishers of science and health journals have cozied up to Big Pharma in too many ways: by increasingly relying on advertising, by including corporate-sponsored supplements (1, 2), by publishing articles ghostwritten by corporate employees (1, 2), and by launching so-called "throwaway" journals that are little more than marketing materials. Publishers have also dragged their feet on implementing rigorous conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements.
Medical journals present themselves as offering a “gold standard” of peer review that makes them noble arbiters of scientific truth. In fact, they constitute a highly profitable industry (1, 2). For example, a 2003 report [PDF] from the Wellcome Trust concluded, "the publishing of scientific research does not operate in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by a commercial market intent on improving its market position."
If "whitewashing" is a general recasting of evidence to present the negative as positive, and "greenwashing" is a shallow attempt by polluters to appear environmentally responsible, then perhaps the hiring of academics and their institutions by drug companies to provide a veneer of credibility is "ivory (tower) washing."
A statement by an Elsevier's spokesperson regarding the fake journal is not encouraging:
New seedy details are emerging from a class action lawsuit in Australia. For example, the company drew up an enemies list of doctors and researchers critical of Vioxx, who would be "neutralised" through professional and personal intimidation.
Yet another disturbing revelation is that Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of primary scientific literature, created an entirely new, seemingly peer-reviewed journal after receiving payments from Merck. According to The Scientist, Merck paid an undisclosed amount of cash to Elsevier to launch the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which largely contained content favorable to Merck's products - particularly Vioxx - but did not disclose the sponsorship.
Bob Grant of The Scientist writes:
In testimony provided at the trial last week, which was obtained by The Scientist, George Jelinek, an Australian physician and long-time member of the World Association of Medical Editors, reviewed four issues of the journal that were published from 2003-2004. An "average reader" (presumably a doctor) could easily mistake the publication for a "genuine" peer reviewed medical journal, he said in his testimony. "Only close inspection of the journals, along with knowledge of medical journals and publishing conventions, enabled me to determine that the Journal was not, in fact, a peer reviewed medical journal, but instead a marketing publication for MSD[A] [the Australian branch of Merck]."It's egregious that Elsevier would stoop to this level for a few quick bucks, clearly calling into doubt its code of ethics. ("Elsevier takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record very seriously.") The publisher is capitalizing upon, and risking, the reputations of both peer-reviewed research in general and its own 130-year history [PDF] to help an ethically challenged corporation increase its already-large profits.
He also stated that four of the 21 articles featured in the first issue he reviewed referred to Fosamax. In the second issue, nine of the 29 articles related to Vioxx, and another 12 to Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions regarding the MSDA drugs. "I can understand why a pharmaceutical company would collect a number of research papers with results favourable to their products and make these available to doctors," Jelinek said at the trial. "This is straightforward marketing."
Jelinek also pointed out several "review" articles that only cited one or two references. He described one of these articles as "simply a summary of an already published article," and noted that they were authored by "B&J Editorial."
At the same time, this may be merely another step along a dark path. In recent years, too many publishers of science and health journals have cozied up to Big Pharma in too many ways: by increasingly relying on advertising, by including corporate-sponsored supplements (1, 2), by publishing articles ghostwritten by corporate employees (1, 2), and by launching so-called "throwaway" journals that are little more than marketing materials. Publishers have also dragged their feet on implementing rigorous conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements.
Medical journals present themselves as offering a “gold standard” of peer review that makes them noble arbiters of scientific truth. In fact, they constitute a highly profitable industry (1, 2). For example, a 2003 report [PDF] from the Wellcome Trust concluded, "the publishing of scientific research does not operate in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by a commercial market intent on improving its market position."
If "whitewashing" is a general recasting of evidence to present the negative as positive, and "greenwashing" is a shallow attempt by polluters to appear environmentally responsible, then perhaps the hiring of academics and their institutions by drug companies to provide a veneer of credibility is "ivory (tower) washing."
A statement by an Elsevier's spokesperson regarding the fake journal is not encouraging:
"I wish there was greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal....
"Elsevier acknowledges the concern that the journals in question didn't have the appropriate disclosures. It is worth noting that project in question was produced 6 years ago and disclosure protocols have evolved since 2003. Elsevier's current disclosure policies meet the rigor and requirements of the current publishing environment."
The spokesperson added that Elsevier has no plans to look further into the matter.
Elsevier was a partner in promoting a product that led to tens of thousands of deaths. But according to its spokesperson, its transgressions were six years ago, so it doesn't matter. And its policies have changed, so it will never, ever happen again.
Update: It appears Elsevier has an entire division, Excerpta Medica. dedicated to these strategic partnerships. From Bibliographic Wilderness and Laika's MedLibLog via Slashdot, via BoingBoing, via Summer Johnson.
Previously on Biopolitical Times:
