Trevor Jackson: Is there an unbiased doctor in the house?
25 Jul, 08 | by BMJ Group
It was perhaps inevitable that a list of up to 100 experts untainted by drug industry money might get people talking. Questions such as why is so-and-so on it or so-and-so not on it, how do you get on it, and isn’t it all just a bit po-faced anyway, might well be asked.
But even before Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee’s list of experts in various health related fields list received exclusive publication in the BMJ this week, it was attracting a lot of attention in the blogosphere.
“This whole thing started,” writes Howard Brody of the University of Texas Medical Branch, “when Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee (full disclosure–as a result of sharing info on a number of stories and projects regarding the drug industry, I have become friends with both of them) asked all of us in their Rolodex whether we would be willing to have our names listed as ‘experts’ (in whatever field) who had certified that we had received no industry support or payments or other bribes in the past 5 years. They had gotten tired of the industry claim that all the really good docs in the US, who actually know what they are talking about, are paid Pharma consultants.”
What eventually happened with this list is described in an article the two journalists wrote for Slate: Brody says the media “went crazy over their list.”
But the pair have come in for some stick. Brody points to two blogs (point of law and drugwonks - while blogs that lined up in support of Lenzer and Brownlee were furious seasons and flay.slate.com
And when Lenzer and Brownlee first told my colleague Deb Cohen about their list, we approached them to ask to publish it, continuing the BMJ’s tradition of following the interface between medicine and the media.
Jeanne Lenzer told me this week, after the BMJ’s publication of the list had gone live, “We held off a public posting initially because of the way The List was originally conceived: We only asked experts if we could pass along their names to fellow journalists.
Once we came under attack (as Howard Brody said, we were accused of harbouring a bunch of plaintiff’s whores and not genuine experts), we had to ask permission of the group to release their names publicly. We expected some hesitation given how vitriolic the attacks have been.
But, to our surprise, list members said, “Sure – release our names. We’re used to being attacked by industry. This is nothing new.”
Although intended to be international, the list is mostly US–oriented at present. It will be interesting to see how it develops now that it has been posted.
Trevor Jackson is magazine editor, BMJ.
the response the list got is just so typical of how wild–and i mean wild on every possible level–conversations have gotten around pharma influence in the US and the UK. how folks like erick turner could be written off as plaintiff’s whores is way beyond me.
anyway, happy to know i made it to the right side of this issue.
and thanks to the bmj for making this an issue. i think it’s time for some american medical journals to step up and follow suit.
Philip Dawdy
July 29th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Dear Trevor,
This is a great initiave. As a GP there was much concern about whether my prescribing would be influenced by drug company representatives taking me to lunch. The truth is that even industrial qualtities of sushi had no effect on my prescribing habits. It is the ‘expert’ opinions on anti hypertensives, statins etc that affect what I prescribe. It is these ‘experts’ who need to disclose, not whether they have recieved any honarariums from drug companies for giving lectures, but how much they they have recieved. If they recieve £5000 in a year I am not very concerned. If it is £50,000 I am concerned. And the disclosure needs to be the sum from all drug companies, not just one. I am a member of the Church of Latter Day Therapuetic Nihilists. Our Prophet Douglas Black taught that thou shall not prescribe or investigate unless there is a good reason. If an expert is recieving £10,000 a year from 10 different drug companies they are unlikely to share my faith. When I contemplate their opinions, given that I am a fulltime GP without the luxury of assessing the literature myself (and Douglas Black, sadly, is not at present answering my prayers about clinical therapeutics) I need to know “how much in total” - not yes or no. Amen.
Kevin Barraclough
August 1st, 2008 at 9:20 pm