Society ‘snookered’ by research that isn’t new
Peggy Peck of MedPage Today found that research presented as new at the European Society of Cardiology’s annual meeting this weekend was actually published in July, despite the society’s requirement that information submitted for presentation must be new, unpublished data.
When asked by MedPage Today to point out the “news” in the Hot Line presentation, STAR lead investigator Bodo-Eckehard Strauer, MD, of the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Germany, said the news was that bone marrow cell therapy significantly improved survival in patients with chronic cardiomyopathy, which he illustrated with a slide showing a Kaplan-Meier curve – the same graph that was published in the July issue of the European Journal of Heart Failure. Moreover, every data slide in Strauer’s presentation matched the tables in the published paper.
Following questions from MedPage Today, the organization acknowledged its error and has announced the researcher will not be allowed to present at its meetings for two years. Roberto Ferrari, M.D., president of the society, said the research had been accepted for presentation because they thought it had new data but that “We were snookered.”
AHCJ pushes for access to publicly funded research
Filed under: Government, Health data, Health journalism, Public records, Studies
The strong public interest in “direct, free and full text access to research articles” prompted the Association of Health Care Journalists to send comments to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.
The letter [PDF] was in support of full-text access to the fruits of publicly-funded research to members of Congress considering H.R.5037 – Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009. One section of that bill would require researchers who receive funding from federal agencies to provide free online public access to final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after publication in peer-reviewed journals.
While AHCJ did not take a position on the specifics of the bill, the group highlighted the strong public interest in “direct, free and full text access to research articles,” noting that for journalists to be able to provide readers and audiences with accurate and comprehensive reporting, they need to be able to see the full details of research reports, not merely the highlights contained in abstracts or news releases.
“The fundamental principle at issue is the public’s right to examine both the evidence produced by research studies and the methods employed by researchers. When the researchers are supported by taxpayers, the public’s claim is even stronger,” AHCJ’s statement read in part.
The statement took note of the concerns of some publishers who fear the mandate could cut into their income, while also pointing out that other publishers already provide free online access to the full text of research articles within six months of publication.
Related:
Bill would require public access to research
Hearing on public access to research will be online
Filed under: Health data, Health journalism, Public records, Studies
Representatives of a number of medical- and publishing-related organizations will testify today at a hearing on “Public access to federally funded research” before the Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
You can catch the webcast of the hearing at 2 p.m. EDT. Update: It appears the hearing is not being webcast.
(Hat tip to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for the webcast link.)
Earlier
- Bill would require public access to research
- AHCJ: Proposal would be blow to public access
- Progress on open access issue not what it seems
Bill would require public access to research
Filed under: Health journalism, Public health, Public records
Federal agencies would be required to develop policies allowing timely, free, online access to government-funded research under a bill, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 (H.R.5037), moving through the U.S. House of Representatives. A hearing on the subject is scheduled next week (PDF) before the Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Pennsylvania Democrat Mike Doyle is sponsoring the bill. Similar legislation was introduced last year but failed to make it through the process.
The bill is supported by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition and its Alliance for Taxpayer Access, which reports the hearing is open to the public and will be at 2 p.m. on July 29 in the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2154. A list of organizations opposing the bill is at www.openbiomed.info, taken from a letter (PDF) to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Doyle’s site carries text of a letter signed by a number of research universities in support of the bill.
The bill, which would apply to 11 agencies “with extramural research expenditures of over $100 million,” would require that the policies apply to researchers who work for the agencies as well as those funded by the agencies. Specifically, the bill calls for:
- free online public access to final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months after publication in peer-reviewed journals;
- production of an online bibliography of all research papers that are publicly accessible under the policy, with each entry linking to the corresponding free online full text
- long-term preservation of, and free public access to, published research findings
That would require public access to research similar to what’s required by the NIH’s Public Access Policy that was made permanent last year.
Related
AHCJ: Proposal would be blow to public access
AHCJ seeks change in medical meeting policies
NOTE: A previous version of AHCJ’s news release said that eight medical groups have policies that ban photography and recording at their meetings. In fact, only four have outright bans. Other groups have varying levels of restrictions. Please read the updated version of the release.
The Association of Health Care Journalists has asked eight medical organizations to end their policies that bar journalists from recording or photographing the meetings where new scientific research is presented.
Such policies make it difficult for journalists to provide complete and accurate information to the public. Most medical societies do not bar recording and photography – but those that do include such prominent organizations as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Association for Cancer Research.
“At medical society meetings, speakers often present extensive methods and volumes of data at a rapid pace,” said letters to the medical groups from AHCJ. “It is not physically possible to write fast enough to get it all down. It is easier for everyone, including your staff and presenting researchers, if writers can record and photograph what they need.”
The letters note the difficulties that these stringent policies create for all concerned. Writers have to chase down speakers after the fact, the press room staff has to connect speakers with reporters who need to clarify information, and speakers have to take time to repeat what they had already said.
Rule limits Harvard docs’ conflicts of interest
Harvard doctors will now be limited to making $5,000 a year for serving as board members for drugmakers and biotech companies, under a new rule intended to reduce the conflicts of interest in medical research.
Scott Hensley explains and rounds up the coverage on NPR’s Shots blog, with links to stories in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. Hensley writes that the new rules also prohibit taking company shares as compensation and from serving on drug companies’ speaker bureaus.
MIWatch.org calls for real disclosure reform
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Pharmaceuticals, Studies
Phyllis Vine at MIWatch.org, a site that follows news about mental illness, asks whether drug company disclosures about payments made to doctors go far enough and whether anyone actually pays attention to such disclosures.
Vine raises the question of doctors taking part in “educational settings, including grand rounds, courses at professional conferences, or continuing education programs that pharma spends billions of dollars underwriting.”
She addresses the disproportionate number of psychiatrists who represent pharmaceutical companies and dominate the upper bracket of paid speakers. Vine also notes that, while many schools have drafted or are drafting policies about faculty-industry relations, enforcement of those policies is questionable.
Read the whole post on MIWatch.org.
Report focuses on researchers’ conflicts of interest
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Government, Studies
There are vulnerabilities in how financial conflicts of interest are handled by NIH-funded researchers, according to a report (PDF, 46 pages) released today by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General. Among the findings:
- 90 percent of the grantee institutions rely solely on the researchers’ discretion to determine which financial interests are required to be reported
- because nearly half of the grantee institutions do not require researchers to provide specific amounts of equity or compensation on their financial disclosure forms, specific financial interests of NIH-funded researchers are often unknown
- grantee institutions do not routinely verify the information submitted by researchers about their financial interests
- some grantee institutions lack documentation to support their oversight of financial conflicts of interest
- the majority of grantee institutions do not have policies and procedures that address subgrantee compliance with federal regulations regarding financial conflicts of interest
- conflicts were not reported by grantee institutions to NIH in a consistent format
- grantee institutions are not required to report to NIH any financial interests that they have with outside companies
The inspector general’s review focused on the 41 grantee institutions that submitted financial conflict-of-interest reports to NIH in fiscal year 2006.
The review found that the most common financial conflict of interest is equity ownership (including stock and stock options) in companies in which the researchers’ financial interests could significantly affect the grant research.
Other financial conflicts of interest among researchers involved inventing technology, consulting, or holding positions with outside companies. To manage financial conflicts of interest, grantee institutions often require researchers to disclose conflicts in research publications; however, grantee institutions rarely reduce or eliminate financial conflicts of interest.
The report includes a number of recommendations – that it has previously recommended – to improve the reporting of financial conflicts of interest.
Grassley compares ghostwriting, plagiarism
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Government, Pharmaceuticals, Studies
Sen/ Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) continues his investigation of “medical ghostwriting” with a letter to 10 medical schools asking “what they are doing about professors who put their names on ghostwritten articles in medical journals — and why that practice was any different from plagiarism by students.”
Sen. Charles Grassley
At issue is the practice in which a writer — sometimes paid by a pharmaceutical or other involved company — works on an article intended for publication without being named while a less-involved researcher receives credit.
Journals, medical associations and even pharmaceutical companies have called for an end to the practice but medical schools have been slower to respond.
Grassley has asked the medical schools to explain their policies on ghostwriting and plagiarism, to list complaints and describe investigations into both practices.
NY stem cell researchers can pay egg donors
The ethical thicket that is stem cell research just got a little more complex. New York became the first state to allow taxpayer-funded researchers to pay women to donate eggs specifically for stem cell experiments.
"Stripped" human oocyte; granulosa cells that had surrounded this oocyte have been removed. Courtesy: RWJMS IVF Laboratory via Wikimedia Commons
The compensation could run as high as $10,000. Supporters argue it will spur better, quicker research results. Opponents say paying for eggs crosses an ethical line.
The state board that made the new policy says it’s just like compensating women for donating eggs for reproductive purposes. But the National Academy of Sciences doesn’t see it that way, saying in its guidelines for stem cell research that payment to donors for eggs is a no-no.
Some scientists in the field say the main source now — eggs left over from in vitro fertilization procedures — hasn’t been adequate. (New York won’t pay for those eggs under the new policy anyway.)
Scientists outside New York are already envious. Harvard stem cell researcher George Q. Daley, told The New York Times, the payment policy “will mean a tremendous advantage” for labs in New York.
-
Spend a week at the CDC studying public health, meeting sources. Apply for the AHCJ-CDC Health Journalism Fellowships today!
- Reporting on the intersection of health, environment
- Tip sheet: Covering cuts to Medicare reimbursements
- Briefing: Reporting on health reform between now and 2014
- Covering high-risk insurance pools: Tips for reporters
- Health care reform has passed: What's next?
- Health and education: Covering these intersecting beats
- Reporting on the business of health care
- Health reporting resources for journalists on state and local government beats
