A Listener Criticizes Our Conversation on Medical Journals

We missed the forest through the trees

In our last podcast, Vinay and I discussed the problem with medical journals. This was in response to a column I wrote about four fatally flawed studies that appeared in the most prominent journals.

The commenter is an established academic who will remain nameless because his success depends on journals publishing his work.

Was disappointed that in the most recent sensible med podcast — you guys didn't mention what I think is the biggest conflict of all and reason we don't get fair judging in peer review or guidelines, etc which is the journals/med societies are ultimately judging the science of their biggest funders either directly or indirectly.

Why is it not that simple? Industry has known for years that best advertising is spent on direct to doctors (journal ads, educational talks, conferences, etc).

I called my colleague and we talked. It depressed me. Here are some short thoughts.

On neutrality…

In the law, if a judge has a potential conflict they are expected to recuse themselves.

In kids’ science fairs, you wouldn’t expect a parent to be a judge.

Impartial referees are critical to the success of sports. If people thought sports’ judging was biased, no one would watch.

On Advertisement…

Le’t say I am promoting a local bike race. I need sponsors because entry fees do not cover the costs. A sponsor wants to donate money to place an ad saying they have the best pizza in the world.

No one would object to such an outrageous claim. You don’t even need to have tasted pizza in Italy to know it’s horse hockey.

But it is fine because it is an ad.

Science Should be Different…