AHCJ opposes taking taxpayer-funded research out of public’s reach
Filed under: Government, Health journalism, Public records, Studies
Congress should not roll back public access to taxpayer-funded research reports, AHCJ wrote in a letter to members of Congress (PDF).
AHCJ is opposing the Research Works Act (H.R. 3699), which would remove the public’s access to medical journal articles about publicly funded research. They are currently available for free to the public no more than 12 months after their publication in a medical journal.
“Our board of directors believes strongly that more transparency, not less, is vital for the public to assess how funds are spent and to benefit from and learn about the research underwritten by the government,” board president Charles Ornstein wrote in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “The recently introduced Research Works Act is a step in the wrong direction.”
In the letter, AHCJ rebutted medical publishers’ assertions that the current system doesn’t work.
“We understand the objections of such publishers, who contribute editorial support and fear loss of income,” Ornstein wrote. “But it’s worth noting that much of that support comes from unpaid peer reviewers. And publishers still maintain a year of exclusivity, enabling them to reap profits during the time when interest in research is highest.”
In 2010, AHCJ voiced concerns about a similar bill, which did not become law.
Critically evaluate, report on cell phone/cancer link
Filed under: Health journalism, Health policy, Hot Health Headline
Courtesy of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s press release and the storm of advance coverage it has spawned, you’re probably already braced for Lancet’s imminent publication of the IARC’s report classifying “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” otherwise known as the cell phone/cancer link.
While you’re waiting, it’s worth taking a few minutes to put yourself in position to critically evaluate the study. The six-page press release is a decent place to start, but as Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, blogger and deputy chief medical officer for the national office of the American Cancer Society, reminds us, IARC is a respected source, but the science they’re reviewing is tricky and, at this point, it’s just a press release.
For background on the scientific debate, see Lichtenfeld’s commentary and Eliza Barclay’s post on Shots, NPR’s health blog.
If you don’t have time for the full press release right now, I have pasted what I consider the two must-read paragraphs below. The first summarizes what the working group found upon reviewing established science, while the second explains exactly how the scientists are currently classifying the possible link between cell phones and cancer. Between the two of them, you get a quick snapshot of the study and its implications.
Results
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.
For more perspective on what a 2B classification really means, see Katherine Harmon’s post on the Scientific American editors’ blog. Her key point is that “The May 31 announcement, however, doesn’t imply that cell phones cause cancer. It suggests that there are still enough unknowns not to rule out long-term health effects of the devices.”
Merrill Goozner expects the evidence to be murky and he concludes that IARC’s tenuous conclusion will be fully justified but also largely ignored by the public. He also points us to Lou Slesin’s Microwave News for solid reporting on the conflicts of interest surrounding the issue.
Finally, once the science is published and it’s time to file stories, be sure to refer to AHCJ’s guide to covering medical studies (membership required), where you’ll find all the tips and reminders necessary to ensure you’ve covered all the bases on this high-profile story.
Online guide focuses on covering medical studies
Reporters are inundated with lures to cover the latest medical study or scientific conference paper. And there are some significant milestones being reached in medical research. But, more often, the information reaching the public is way too preliminary or even misleading, say those behind a new AHCJ reporting guide on covering health studies.
The guide will help journalists analyze and write about health and medical research studies. It offers advice on recognizing and reporting the problems, limitations and backstory of a study, as well as publication biases in medical journals and it includes 10 questions you should answer to produce a meaningful and appropriately skeptical report. This guide, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, will be a road map to help you do a better job of explaining research results for your audience.
Scary secrets about ghostwriting in journals
Just in time for Halloween, an anonymous medical ghostwriter spoke to Phil Davis over at the Scholarly Kitchen about the scary world of ghostwriting.
He reveals how much ghostwriters are paid, how the process works, where his work has been published, how to detect ghostwritten material and more.
The Scholarly Kitchen is a blog from the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
(Hat tip to Scott Hensley.)
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.
-
Join us in Atlanta
for Health Journalism 2012
Fellowship applications
due Feb. 27
New at HealthJournalism.org
- Data gives depth to investigation of patient safety
- What reporters should know about Alzheimer’s and related dementias
- Apply for fellowships to attend Health Journalism 2012
- AHCJ asks Supreme Court to permit broadcast of arguments in health reform case
- Tips for print, online journalists to embrace broadcast opportunities
- Numbers reveal how often, or how rarely, states check doctors’ disciplinary records
- How I did it: Falsified charts in nursing homes linked to patient care
- Access Denied: Looking at a lack of health care availability
- Transparency & medical errors: Public reporting of patient harm is a potent force
