The Wall Street Journal Health blog had a story late last week about JAMA's editor's reaction to a reader who criticized the journal for printing a story without disclosing the author's financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. You can find the article here.
Obviously, we don't know all the details about what happened since some of the parties involved aren't talking to the media. But what struck me was the tension in academic research to be competitive, publish interesting findings, be relevant, but all the while keep an arm's length from the pharmaceutical companies. So even the appearance of impropriety makes the editors of a well-known journal saying the first things the pops into their head to discredit the reader who raises a question about an article.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment