Comments on: Grassley Presses Medical Schools On Ghostwriting

By: Evelyn Pringle

Evelyn Pringle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:59:38 +0000

Ha.ha. Good one Salmon.

By: Salmon

Salmon — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:47:17 +0000

How Ghostwriting works in cartoon format.

http://www.mast-victims.org/gfx/photos/dilbertpollution.jpg

Salmon

By: Evelyn Pringle

Evelyn Pringle — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:31:46 +0000

The way I see it, Grassley is just following along the paths that his investigation leads him on.

If I remember right, this investigation started about four or five years ago and it has taken this long to get to where it is now because none of the corrupt actors wanted anything revealed.

And again, if not for litigation, it would never have proceeded at all.

Having court cases tied up for years due to the preemption scam sure didn’t speed things along either.

If some of the information coming out now seems like old news it’s only because of all the successful stalling techniques used.

By: Lori P.

Lori P. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:34:18 +0000

I think this conversation also needs to distinguish types of medical papers. A manuscript for a multicenter clinical trial is quite different from a single-authored review paper, and its the latter than can be most easily corrupted with marketing messages.

When a drug company has sponsored a clinical trial and has numerous investigators to coordinate with, it is entirely appropriate to have a medical writer (on staff or freelance) work on the paper. There has to be one point person to start the draft, incorporate all the authors’ comments, and so on. The writer did not design the study and does not/should not independently interpret the results. Writing a trial manuscript is a truly collaborative process that is expedited when a professional writer is part of the team.

In contrast, a review article may or may not reflect the named author’s work and is the most obvious place for unethical ghostwriting to occur. There are well-known cases of medical communication companies writing the paper first then seeking a prestigious “author” to put on the paper. That is appalling, and the “author” is as much a part of the problem as the medical writer who participates.

These are clearly different situations, yet both get lumped together in this discussion, and I think Senator Grassley and others would be well advised to understand these nuances.

By: BP Observer

BP Observer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:28:29 +0000

This is a huge Pandora’s Box. If the info comes clean, we’ll find out that the KOLs with 200 papers on their CV actually wrote about 10 early in their career. Unfortunately, the writers never really get the credit becuase the pharma company doesn’t want to provide any way for the true authorship to be known.

By: Salmon

Salmon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:10:07 +0000

Sorry to the honest medical writers, but you are ghostwriters when you’re not listed as the primary author, or as to the level of your contribution.

The definition of ghostwriter is already out there. Webster’s and other sources all say a ghostwriter is ’someone who writes for and in the name of another’, and this is clearly the colloquial use.

So it’s really about whether you are an honest ghostwriter or not and if you’re manipulating the data and the message.

By the way I complained to Sen Grassley about this several years ago and I know others did earlier. It’s good to see him pursuing it.

Salmon

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:24:54 +0000

Bruce Wilson, you are right on target. Your definitions clearly lay out the playing field today. Most of us land on the ethical side, not because we have to, but because that is the right thing to do. And for those of us who are ethical writers/authors, we have nothing to hide. The entire process is, and should be, totally transparent to anyone.

By: bullls23

bullls23 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:54:32 +0000

wow, people are so lost.

By: Salmon

Salmon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:53:26 +0000

So Barbara simply because you want to make a profit you need to lie and mislead people.

I don’t buy it.

I think the profit motive is appropriate and does lead to new medicines (not as much as we’ld like as compared to me-toos).

This is not about whether there are ghostwriters but really whether it’s being done in an honest way.

I don’t think anyone would even be following up on it if it was really misrepresentation of how much work the ‘author’ actually put in. It’s really more that it’s a wink-wink nod-nod that we’ll write stuff that we know is not true (and thus will harm people) and you provide the cover of respectability just so we can all defraud the payers and the patients.

Salmon

By: Lisa Van Syckel

Lisa Van Syckel — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:42:03 +0000

Barbara, Its the same as President Obama, we the people, the good ole American Taxpayer.

Just my 2cents..