The caller said that I would not really have to do much work on this project. I would discuss the matter with them, and they would then have a professional writer compose the editorial, which I could modify as I saw fit. I would earn $2,500 for what was estimated to be several hours of work. [p. 673]
The public relations firm sent Brennan, on his request, copies of several editorials and articles it had commissioned. Among the editorials that appeared in non-peer reviewed journals, "the support of pharmaceutical manufacturers was generally not acknowledged" (p. 674). In one peer-reviewed journal, such acknowledgment was made, but, as Brennan says,
Reading that editorial at the time of its publication, I had assumed the acknowledgment meant that at one time or another the author had received support from the drug company for a clinical trial. With this new information, the editorial seemed part of a deliberate strategy to change the opinion of readers, a goal that was also suggested by the memorandum from [the public-relations firm] that accompanied the articles. The memorandum stated, "We are providing these materials to you in confidence, as we do not generally divulge the specific nature of projects conducted on behalf of our clients." At that point, I declined the offer to participate in this project. [p. 674]
As Brennan points out, this practice raises serious ethical questions (a charge addressed in a letter by the public-relations firm on page 676). Do these editorials really amount to advertising? Certainly it is possible that the interest of the pharmaceutical company and the opinion of the researcher commissioned to "write" the editorial would coincide; indeed, I am sure the public-relations firm does its best to see that this is the case. But $2,500 is an extraordinary amount of money (to most of us) for expressing an opinion by way of "a few hours work." It is hard to believe that such an inducement has no effect on a researcher's opinion.
Another issue, as Brennan points out, is that these editorials are parading as something they are not. We do not assume that editorial writers have been paid to express a particular opinion. Even if the editorial writer honestly holds the opinion expressed, there is a kind of deception, very nearly a lie, being perpetrated here. As Brennan says, "if I were to state that I was paid $2,500 to help a public-relations firm write an editorial, my opinion might carry less weight with readers. That is the point."
Brennan calls for better disclosure of this kind of paid collaboration. Policies or regulations requiring more complete disclosure of potential or apparent conflicts of interest might be helpful, but the fact that such policies or regulations are necessary reflects poorly on the state of science. Such a blatantly dishonest practice should not find any takers at all.
Bioethics on line. A cover story entitled "Burgeoning Crop of Bioethics Programs and Courses Reflects the Deepening of Scientists' Moral Concerns" discusses work being undertaken at several medical ethics centers and programs.
Included with the article is a sidebar (page 4) entitled "Electronic Ethics," which briefly describes the Bioethics Online Service, a year-old information resource administered by the Center for the Study of Bioethics and the Office of Research, Technology, and Information at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The service includes news alerts; a database with abstracts of journal articles, news accounts, legislative actions, and court decisions; an electronic discussion group; an archive for ethics- related policies; articles of interest from the Bioethics Center s publications; and links to other bioethics networks and professional organizations.
Quoting from The Scientist:
How to access the Bioethics Online Service:.
For more information, contact Arthur R. Derse, Center for the Study of Bioethics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, Wis. 53226; (414) 456-8498. Fax: (414) 266-8654. E-mail: aderse@post.its.mcw.edu
- Via modem (any speed) and telephone line: Dial (414) 266-5777. At the prompt (MCW >), type c min {enter}. Choose the Bioethics Online Service from the menu.
- Via Internet gopher: Using a gopher client, type post.its.mcw.edu {enter}.
- Via Internet telnet: Type telnet min.lib.mcw.edu {enter}. Choose the Bioethics Online Service from the menu.
Animal Rights. The "Opinion" page in the same issue is entitled "The Use of Animals in Laboratory Research: The Debate Presses Forward." Under this umbrella heading there are two editorials:
As is often the case in public debates on controversial subjects, the two editorials really talk past each other, and neither presents much in the way of data to support its claims. Both take perfectly predictable stances on opposite sides of the issue.
Stoller argues that "Since animal models are mere analogues to their human counterparts, experiments on animals can neither confirm nor disprove any scientific theory." A reallocation of funds from "research depending on animal models to clinical studies using human subjects," he argues, would "likely accelerate the pace of medical progress." Animals can suffer pain; therefore, animals should not be subjected to painful experiments. The utilitarian argument, that the suffering of animals in humans should be weighed against the benefit to humans, he calls absurd. He characterizes scientists as self- interested and not to be trusted on this issue, writing that scientists' claims that animals rights advocates are terrorists or extremists are overblown. Stoller s last sentence: "Given society s large financial stake in animal experimentation and the millions of animals harmed annually, we all have an obligation to address these issues."
Paris positions the animal welfare debate as part of the wider public concern with health-care reform. She writes, dramatically:
But there is one threat to human health that has slipped through a loophole in the public consciousness. It is a threat that has the potential to slow medical progress to a tedious crawl, delaying and sometimes stopping the search for cures and treatments.Paris takes the utility of animal research for granted and spends her entire column attacking animal advocacy groups, especially PETA. She names some celebrities associated with the movement and claims that PETA s covert goal is to "abolish all medical research work with animals, no matter how necessary or humane." Paris s last sentence: "But all of the work being put into improving our health-care system will be for naught if we allow a powerful band of self-righteous activists to deny us the privilege of studying nonhuman animals medical science's most valuable tool in the fight against disease."This threat takes the form of an anti-medical research movement, better known as animal rights.
I think these editorials might be useful to open discussion on the use of animals in research because they are short, readable, and they touch on many of the central issues in the debate, albeit in a polemical fashion. They can also be used to illustrate the elements of a convincing, responsible, and credible argument.
Peer review at NIH. The issue also includes a commentary by Jose M. Musacchio, a professor of pharmacology at New York University, entitled "Triage at NIH: A Smoke Screen Concealing the Real Problems Facing American Science." Musacchio lambastes NIH s "effort to streamline its peer-review process by virtually dismissing, after cursory examination, as many as half the research proposals it receives" (p. 13). The problem, he opines, is not that there are too many bad proposals; the problem is that there are too many good proposals and not enough money to go around.
Musacchio identifies several ill effects of rejecting so many proposals without a full review. It won't save much time. Young scientists, in particular, will suffer; receiving summary rejections without a written report will deprive them of important feedback, and they "will never know what went wrong."
Musacchio seems to see this as primarily a practical matter, but there are ethical implications, as well. Musacchio intimates that summary rejection will reduce accountability: "[T]housands of applications will be rejected without discussion for reasons that will remain secret, because the valuable summary statements will be dispensed with."
Get it from the Net. If you don't subscribe to The Scientist, you can get it online.
Last updated: 22 January 1996
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/tre1-4.htm
Comments: pimple@indiana.edu
Copyright 1996, The Trustees of Indiana University