1 Boring Old Man

The National Institutes of Health NOT Friendly to Ghostwriting
Project on GovernmentOversight
By Paul D. Thacker
Mar 01, 2011

Late last year, POGO sent a letter to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) apprising them of four examples of academics who used the ghostwriting firm Scientific Therapeutics Information to publish studies, letters, and a book. POGO’s letter was covered by The New York Times, and Nature published an editorial excoriating the NIH for supporting researchers who fail to reveal their ties to industry.

Last week, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins wrote to POGO explaining his agency’s take on financial conflicts of interest and ghostwriting in academia. Presidents and Deans of America’s medical schools take note: Dr. Collins wrote that the NIH “does not condone the practice of ghostwriting.” In fact, ghostwriting is banned at the NIH, and if federal funds are involved, Dr. Collins stated that ghostwriting could be referred to the Office of Research Integrity for an investigation as “a case of plagiarism.”

Dr. Collins also wrote that the NIH is considering ways to deal with ghostwriting in its newly proposed revision to rules on conflicts of interest in extramural funding:

Because of its potential to create conflicts-of-interest that could bias or otherwise inappropriately influence NIH-supported research, “paid authorship” was specifically included in the proposed revisions to the regulations. By including “paid authorship” in the definition of “Significant Financial Interest” in the proposed rule, the NIH is sending a clear message to institutions and investigators alike that we support the principles of transparency and accountability in research and that institutions and investigators engaging in such activity may be subject to more rigorous disclosure and reporting.

People. Pay attention. Time to give up the ghosts. Read the NIH’s response to POGO’s letter.

Boo! The NIH Grapples With Ghostwriting
Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
March 2nd, 2011

… A investigator at the POGO watchdog, however, says the NIH rule may not go far enough if disclosure does not include payments made to outsiders who help with the preparation of an article. “I don’t think he realizes how extensive [ghostwriting] is. He seems to imply that maybe there are a few bad apples, but this is how medicine has been proceeding for a number of years and this is a common practice,” says POGO investigator Paul Thacker who, until recently, was an investigator for US Senator Chuck Grassley and spearheaded several investigations into the pharmaceutical industry.

“What he doesn’t understand are the subtleties – publications are the currency in academia. It doesn’t matter if the author gets paid or not, because publication, itself, is compensation. Articles are also used for gaining tenure and grants. They need to disclose all the money that goes into publication, all the money spent by a drugmaker to have an article published, not just what’s given a doctor.”

And to put Collins to the test, Thacker says POGO is currently investigating an instance that would, in his view, constitute plagiarism and the watchdog intends to release the information in the coming weeks. “Let’s see what happens then,” says Thacker.