No Double Standard at JAMA

[Guest guest]

Now let me get this one straight. JAMA is defending itself that it Does

publish articles written by those with financial interest?

Subj:

[ Date: 7/29/2006 11:31:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time From:

(mailto:rockdoc50@...) To:

______________________________________________________________________________

_____

MedNews list is hosted by:

Linux Medical News

http://www.LinuxMedNews.com

'Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice'

______________________________________________________________________________

______

No Double Standard at JAMA

Tuesday, July 25, 2006; A14

We wonder why Stossel and Shaywitz [ " What's Wrong With Money in

Science? " Outlook, July 2] would choose an opinion piece to air their

erroneous views about an article that was published in the Journal of the

American

Medical Association more than two months earlier, on April 26. We also wonder

why Post editors would print such blatantly incorrect and potentially

disparaging statements about JAMA without some basic fact-checking.

Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz's allegation that JAMA applied a double

standard in the evaluation of the study on financial conflicts of interests of

Food

and Drug Administration advisory committee members is unfounded and

unsupportable. In fact, the study underwent rigorous peer review, extensive

revisions

and intense editorial scrutiny before publication -- just as does every

research paper we publish.

Their statement that the journal bans leading experts who have any company

ties from writing editorials or commentaries in JAMA is also incorrect. An

example of an editorial written by such an expert, along with full and detailed

disclosure of that expert's relevant conflicts of interest, was published in

the same issue as the article they incorrectly criticized.

Our policies on industry-sponsored studies are indeed " tough-minded, " in

that JAMA is the only general medical journal that requires an independent

statistical analysis by an academician for studies in which the only

statisticians

who analyzed the data are employed by the company sponsoring the research.

Given some of the recent high-profile episodes of research irregularities by

some for-profit sponsors, this is a necessary system that also provides an

additional layer of oversight by an academic officer for research findings that

can have major clinical implications for patients.

JAMA's policy for disclosure of conflicts also is " tough-minded. " The Post

disclosed only that Mr. Stossel " serves as a consultant to biotechnology and

pharmaceutical companies. " If Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz had submitted their

comments about the article as a scholarly letter to JAMA (to which the

authors would have been given the opportunity to reply), rather than as a

newspaper

opinion piece, they would have been required to specifically report all of

their relevant financial conflicts of interest in a signed statement. This

approach, which applies to every JAMA author, allows readers to evaluate

articles with full understanding of all potential conflicts.

Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz's position that there is nothing wrong with

" money in science " is untenable.

CATHERINE D. DEANGELIS

Editor in Chief

PHIL B. FONTANAROSA

Executive Deputy Editor

Journal of the American Medical Association

Chicago

© 2006 The Washington Post Company