\nGhostwriting, RICO And Fraud On The Court?<\/font><\/a>
Pharmalot<\/font><\/strong>
By Ed Silverman
August 3rd, 2011<\/div>\nThe contentious debate over ghostwriting shows no sign of abating. Even the definition of ghostwriting – the mysterious practice in which an article lands in a medical journal with the name of an author who, as it turns out, had little or nothing to do with the substance of the publication – prompts argument. Meanwhile, the issue has caused several scandals for several drugmakers and medical journals, causing embarrassment and turmoil.<\/p>\n
So what to do? A pair of University of Toronto academics suggests two legal remedies – pursuing class action lawsuits based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, and filing claims of ‘fraud on the court’ against a drugmaker that uses ghostwritten articles in litigation. They make their case in an article that was published in PLoS Medicine (here is the article<\/a><\/u><\/strong>).<\/p>\n
As they explain, peer-reviewed articles are cited as credible sources of evidence in lawsuits to support claims about safety and effectiveness, and for determining liability. And they note that industry-controlled studies prepared by ghostwriters or guest authors – someone who is invited to have their name placed on a study – may distort perceptions about safety and effectiveness.<\/p>\n
“By facilitating publication in peer-reviewed journals, guest authorship creates the impression that standards of academic independence and integrity have been satisfied even when they have not, and makes it more likely that the research will be treated as legally admissible even when this is inappropriate,” they write.<\/p>\n