Collections under
which this article appears: Authorship
BMJ 2002;324:1474 ( 22 June )
News
New EnglandJournal loosens its rules on conflict of interest
Scott Gottlieb, New York
The New England Journal of Medicine is relaxing its longstanding rules
on conflict of interest so that it can publish evaluationsof new
drugs by researchers with financial ties to the manufacturersbecause
it cannot find enough experts without financial ties todrugcompanies.
In an editorial, the journal's editors say the change means its readership
will be better and more promptly informed aboutdrugs that are just
coming on the market and have been studiedonly in trials funded by
industry. Editors concede there is arisk that the objectivity of
authors may be compromised, but saythat otherwise doctors might have
to rely on pharmaceutical companiesfor information about new
treatments (NewEngland Journal of Medicine 2002;346:1901-2)[Full
Text].
From 1990 until now, the journal's rule was that nobody who wrote a review
article or editorial could have any financial interestin a company
that made a product discussed by the article, orin any of its
competitors. Under the new policy, the journal willprohibit
researchers from evaluating drugs for publication onlyif they have
"significant" financial interests in manufacturersof the products,
or theircompetitors.
The new policy pertains only to review articles and editorials. Researchers
with company ties have always been permitted topresent original data
as long as their financial connections aredisclosed.
The journal defines a significant financial interest as holding company
stock, stock options, or patent positions, or havingreceived more
than $10000 (£6800; 10600) from the manufacturer
in the two years before the review'spublication.
Lesser financial ties, such as ownership of publicly traded mutual funds or
honorariums for educational lectures sponsoredby drug companies,
"may be appropriately viewed as minor and unlikelyto influence an
author's judgment," said the editorial, jointlysigned by the editor,
Jeffrey Drazen, and the executive editor,Gregory Curfman. Such ties
will be disclosed toreaders.
The change in policy was criticised by Dr Sidney Wolfe, the director of the
Public Citizen Health Research Group, one of thecountry's largest
medical consumer groups. He said: "If a doctoris doing that kind of
business [evaluating drugs] with four orfive companies, he or she
can get as much [as] $40- to 50,000a year and not violate the new
New England Journalpolicy.
"The bias introduced by drug companies paying writers of review articles a
large amount of money can have the consequenceof slanting articles
and influencing physicians in a way thatisn't really in the best
interests of their patients," headded.
But Dr Drazen defended the loosening of ethics rules, arguing that in the two
years that he has run the journal he has beenable to commission and
publish only one review article about anew drug. He called that a
disservice to readers as well as tocontributors.
Dr Jeffrey Drazen said the changes would
mean doctors were better informed
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"