Has Ghostwriting Infected The "Experts" With Tainted Knowledge, Creating Vectors for Further Spread and Mutation of the Scientific Knowledge Base?

I could have titled this piece "have the deceivers been themselves deceived?"

Recent revelations have shown that biomedical ghostwriting is a scourge that some physicians and scientists -- who are clearly lacking ethics, insight and perhaps an understanding of psychiatric defense mechanisms such as rationalization -- engage in all too often, as it taints the corpus of worldwide scientific literature.

(I covered the issues related to ethical and justified claims of provenance for scientific writing in my post "Wyeth: Ghostwritten Papers Fake, But Accurate" here along with a discussion of why lay leadership of biomedical R&D organizations was not a good idea. Such leaders cannot vouch for the scientific fairness and accuracy emanating from their own organizations.)

One should examine the evidence in a first-person manner. The New York Times has made available secret documents and emails secured by Senator Grassley on Wyeth's ghostwriting practices. These documents were unsealed by a judge in a personal injury lawsuit and chronicle Wyeth's use of a medical writing company to prepare articles for publication in medical journals.

Wyeth said all the articles are "scientifically accurate" and that "it is a common practice in the pharmaceutical industry to work with such firms" (and, by implication, to falsify claimed authorship). As justification for clearly unethical practices, this is a rather poor argument, being a classic logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Common Practice:

Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

That said, these documents raise an important question of a systemic nature:

Have the scientific ghostwriting deceivers themselves been deceived regarding biomedical reality by these practices?

Might they genuinely believe they are contributing to the scientific literature based on their own erroneous notions, the latter based upon a scientific literature contaminated by other ghostwriters?

To illustrate this point, in the New York Times online document pool, we discover that Dr. Gloria Bachmann, Associate Dean for Women's Health and Professor of OB/GYN and Medicine at UNDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School was presented with a tidy ghostwritten article entitled "The Importance of Treating Vasomotor Symptoms" (in peri- and post-menopausal women) by authors "TBD" (to be decided):

(Original ghostwritten draft. Authors "TBD." Click to enlarge)

about which Bachmann wrote the following in an email to the true authors' organization:

"Outline is excellent as written. I would like to try for publication as a review article in Obstetrics and Gynecology. We would have to change the title to "Vasomotor Symptoms: Evidence Based Treatment Options" or a title that emphasizes the data driven writing style."

Here is an image of the email:

(Approval email. Click to enlarge)

She found the content OK and agreed to review it.

Apparently, only minor changes were made. (Bachmann should have received accreditation in the acknowledgments section for reviewing the article, and/or a position far down the authorship hierarchy if she actually added some material).

Instead, the reverse occured.

The published document appeared with Bachmann as first (and only) author after Bachmann submitted it to a medical journal under her name, itself unethical. See what "Authors TBD" morphed into in the image below:

(Article submission cover page. Click to enlarge)

Here is how the true authors, medical writers for DesignWrite, the medical writing and communications company retained by Wyeth to write the article, received credit:

(How the "ghosts" received credit for writing the paper. Click to enlarge)

Unbelievable.

Bachmann has since stated that she believed she was adding to science by engaging in this deceit. From the New York Times:

The article, a nearly verbatim copy of the DesignWrite draft, appeared in 2005 in The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, with Dr. Bachmann listed as the primary author. It described hormone drugs as the “gold standard” for treating hot flashes and was less enthusiastic about other therapies.

The acknowledgments thanked several medical writers for their “editorial assistance,” not disclosing that those writers worked for DesignWrite, which charged Wyeth $25,000 to generate the article.

Dr. Bachmann, who has 30 years of research and clinical experience in menopause, said she played a major role in the publication by lending her expertise. Her e-mail messages do not reflect contributions she may have made during phone calls and in-person meetings, she said. ["May have made?" This gossamer excuse is embarrassing to me, as an academic myself - ed.]

“There was a need for a review article and I said ‘Yes, I will review the draft and make sure it is accurate,’ ” Dr. Bachmann said in an interview Tuesday. “This is my work, this is what I believe, this is reflective of my view.”…

She is quite off base regarding scientific authorship and "this being her work", but what also needs examination is her "lending her expertise" and her agreeing with the paper as "reflective of her view."

The paper itself lists many references, for example these:

(References: click to enlarge)

Here is, then, the dilemma, another major problem posed by ghostwriting:

How many of the cited references, which contributed to Bachmann's beliefs regarding these drugs, were themselves ghostwritten and potentially biased, or otherwise influenced by drug companies?

For that matter, how many studies with different ("negative") conclusions on these subjects were suppressed from publication by industry pressure? 

Bachmann's own "expert opinions" about these matters may be based upon false or misleading information she's read in other journals, the percentage of which are genuine vs. ghostwritten or industry-influenced being an unknown at this point in time.

While I believe Bachmann is most likely rationalizing away the unethical nature of attribution without fair and justifying contribution, perhaps fueled by additional motives of academic portfolio building and perhaps present and future potential pecuniary gain, it is possible she is being genuine about agreeing with the "science" in the paper.

However, her agreement may be predicated upon her own tainted expertise -- tainted by reading ghostwritten or industry-influenced articles in her area of specialty.

Will we ever be able to peel back all the layers of the ghostwriting onion to get to the core of impartial and objective scientific articles related to drugs and medical devices? Perhaps not, but the practice must stop going forward.

Tainted literature creates tainted scientific knowledge, the carriers of which may then further taint the knowledge base (with the best of intentions and with firm belief in the fairness and accuracy of their activities, of course).

Practitioners of evidence-based medicine may be unwittingly practicing "evidence-tainted medicine", or "pseudo-evidence based medicine" as described by others on this blog.

Such are the systemic risks of the scourge of ghostwriting.

-- SS

Aug. 31, 2012 Addendum:

I was made aware of the following 2011 paper thanks to a post by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog:  "Why Does Academic Medicine Allow Ghostwriting?  A Prescription for Reform" by Jonathan Leo, Jeffrey R. Lacasse, and Andrea N. Cimino

The paper also observes:

Due to its secretive nature, it is difficult to quantify how many invisible corporate authors haunt the medical literature.

The paper is worth reading in its entirety and as of this writing is available free at the link above.

-- SS

8:00 AM

Guest Blog - On the Need to Get Ethical

Guest blog by Dr William Tierney -

This is old news. I'm the Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of General Internal Medicine, and in our June 2005 issues we reported in detail a case of medical ghostwriting that had the particular target of showing the hazards of the oral anticoagulant drug warfarin, supporting a drug company's new oral anticoagulant. This article was accompanied by an editorial by me any my Co-Editor and a position statement by the World Association of Medical Editors decrying such practices.

I am a practicing general internist who prescribes drugs regularly that help my patients. I want and need new drugs to be developed, and I believe that users of those drugs should pay for the necessary research and development through both drug pricing and funding of NIH. I am also a patient and similarly want there to be effective drugs to prolong my life and healthy living. But they should be described in an evidence-based manner, and the evidence must be unbiased. The drugs should be priced so the drug company recoups its costs and makes a profit. I have no problems with any of that. But when they try to enhance their profits through illegitimate means -- by essentially lying through advertisements masquerading as scientific articles sneaked into peer-reviewed journals -- then these drug companies are behaving unethically and need to be punished.

I also am a clinical epidemiologist, and as such I do research investigating the positive and adverse outcomes of drugs. I have worked with and been funded by drug companies to do this work, collaborating with company scientists. To a person, I have found them to be honest, careful, and caring people who truly want to positively impact people's lives. It is the marketing divisions of these drug companies that operate in an atmosphere of "anything goes that helps the bottom line."

My father was a purchasing agent for a factory that made automobile parts. We used to get "presents" every Christmas, tickets to Broadway, etc. from suppliers, blatant attempts to influence his decision-making. I can't say whether it ever did, but in the end he had to live with his decisions and so did the company for which he worked. But as a physician, I don't receive the benefits of the drugs I prescribe for my patients, nor do I pay the costs. I act as an agent of my patients, and as such I need to balance benefits, adverse effects, and costs of everything I order. If I have bad information, or if I succumb to company bribes in the form of honoraria, meals, or gifts, my patients pay the price both directly (through my ordering an expensive drug they might not need) and indirectly (through inflated drug prices in general).

It is time for the drug companies to get ethical. Cut out the ghostwriting. Cut out the bribes. Cut out the marketing to patients that inflate drug benefits and minimize their costs and risks. Charge prices that recoup their drug development costs and stop paying billions to "push" drugs on physicians and patients, adding those costs to their drug prices. And we physicians likewise need to get ethical, stop taking bribes, stop reading propaganda or listening to drug detailmen, and base our decisions solely on what is best for our patients, without ignoring costs. (Nobody benefits if we bankrupt our system -- but that's another story...)

We are seeing changes. Eli Lilly now lists all payments they make to physicians (honoraria for speaking, meals, trips, etc.). Many medical schools and large practice organizations have outlawed meals and gifts by drug companies. Journals are more vigilant for ghostwriting and other conflicts of interest among authors. We are seeing a change, and hopefully the abuses by Wyeth, DesignWrite, and other companies involved in ghostwriting will become a thing of our (sordid) past. We can only hope and maintain our diligence as caring health care providers.

Dr Tierney is Co-Editor-in-Chief, the Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Professor of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine. This was also posted as a comment here on the NY Times article about Wyeth's sponsoring of ghost-writing of articles on hormone replacement therapy. See our most recent post on this topic here.

1:11 PM

Wyeth's Industrial Scale Ghost-Writing

MedInformaticsMD noted the impending release of documents about how Wyeth engineered ghost-writing of articles about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) here. Now the NY Times has had a chance to review the documents, with fascinating results.

The scope of the ghost-writing campaign was on an impressively industrial scale: 26 articles published over 7 years in 18 medical journals.

The details were ably covered by at least three other blogs. Dr Adriane Fugh-Berman, guest- (not ghost-) blogging on PharmaGossip discussed how the documents reached the public domain. Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries offered some choice comments -

By Dr Carlat

As with baseball players on steroids, when companies pour marketing money into ghostwriting campaigns, they change the rules of the academic game. The playing field is no longer level; the drug company's version of the truth gains the upper hand. Sometimes, their truth really is the truth, but sometimes it's a carefully crafted lie. Sorting it out is difficult even for physicians who specialize in the area being written about. It's essentially impossible for the average generalist physician, to say nothing of patients who did not have the advantage of attending medical school.

By Prof Soltan

This filthy practice incorporates just about everything people rightly revile about some precincts of academia: Plagiarism. Fakery. Arrogance. Laziness. Cynicism (Wyeth was promoting drugs that turned out to be dangerous.).

People make fun of postmodernists by talking about the Postmodern Generator, a program that automatically generates articles full of obscurantist rhetoric. But that’s only generating words. Ghosting whores among our medical faculties are generating real sickness.

These are hard acts to follow, so my comment is: ghost writing is also corrupt. Transparency International defines corruption as abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Medical academics are entrusted to discover and disseminate the truth. Practicing physicians, patients and the public entrust medical academics to provide honest, informed, unbiased information and opinions.

When academics allow marketing hacks to write supposed scholarly articles in their name, they abuse this entrusted power (and privately gain by padding their CV, and often by direct payment as "consultants.") Of course, as noted above, this sort of corruption deceives the public, patients, and physicians into thinking that drugs and devices are better and more valuable than they actually are, denying patients preferable treatments, increasing the risk of needless adverse effects, and driving up the costs of health care.

Those who are pushing for meaningful health care reform ought to put fighting health care corruption at the top of their agendas, starting with the blatant corruption of academic medicine and medical research of which ghost-writing is but one species.

11:40 AM

Wyeth: Ghostwritten Papers Fake, But Accurate

It looks like Wyeth has lost its battle to keep secret its practices regarding ghostwriting of scientific papers. The issue in question is whether ghostwriting contributed to excessive prescription of post-menopausal hormones and increased the incidence of breast cancer:

Posted on Sun, Jul. 26, 2009
Philadelphia Inquirer

Wyeth told to release documents on ghostwriting

Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A federal judge has ordered the unsealing of thousands of pages of documents pertaining to the ghostwriting practices of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which is being sued over hormone-replacement drugs.

U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson ordered the papers unsealed Friday at the request of a medical journal and the New York Times. Plaintiffs' attorneys presented the papers earlier at trial to show that Wyeth routinely hired medical-writing firms to ghostwrite articles that appeared in seemingly objective medical journals but included only the name of a scientific researcher as the author.

Of course, in addition to the violation of accepted practices of authorship, such as specified by NIH and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, among others, such lucky authors get to "count" such papers in their academic portfolios, presumably also in violation of their own institutional policies and guidelines for fair attribution and intellectual honesty, e.g., here. Ghostwriting may also skew the tenure process, providing advantages to the unscrupulous academic over the ethical scientist or scholar. (One wonders about the true percentage of the massive number of papers claimed by some medical academics actually written by the putative first author.)

The ruling came in a case that involves about 8,000 lawsuits that have been combined before Wilson. The lawsuits focus on whether Wyeth hormone-therapy drugs Prempro and Premarin, used to treat symptoms of menopause, have caused breast cancer in some women.

The New Jersey drugmaker, which has major operations in the Philadelphia area, had already turned over the documents, which it says concern about 40 articles in medical journals and other publications, to Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa).

How is evidence based medicine possible if just one drug company has sponsored ghostwritten articles in 40 medical journals and other publications? What is the "total mass" of questionable articles now infecting the literature?

Grassley sought them last year without a subpoena as part of a congressional investigation into drug-industry influence on doctors.

The documents were shown to jurors at trial but have otherwise been unavailable publicly.

Plaintiffs say ghostwriting is when a drug company conjures up the concept for an article that will counteract criticism of a drug or embellish its benefits, hires a professional writing company to draft a manuscript conveying the company's message, retains a physician to sign off as the author, and finds a publisher to unwittingly publish the work.

There are several layers of dishonesty in this activity, including foreknowledge of scientific deception through fraudulent misrepresentation of authorship by the pharma, dishonesty of the physician who "signs off" as first author, and misrepresentation by the pharma, the writing company and the physician about provenance of the article to scientific publishers.

Drug firms disseminate their ghostwritten articles to their sales representatives, who present the articles to physicians as independent proof that the companies' drugs are safe and effective.

Wyeth attorney Stephen Urbanczyk acknowledged that the articles were part of a marketing effort. But he said that they were also fair, balanced, and scientific.

What business does a lawyer have lecturing the public that the articles were a dishonest marketing effort masquerading as legitimate science, but were "fair and scientific?" How does he know? In addition, the "fake but accurate" excuse is getting quite shopworn. Hopefully, Sen. Grassley will approach ending this ghostwriting practice with vigor.

In fact, this raises another issue. I have written that management of pharma by those lacking biomedical bona fides is, by definition, mismanagement. This is a case in point. Wyeth's President, Board Chair and CEO Bernard Poussot lacks biomedical credentials. Harry Truman said "the buck stops here", but a in the case of scientific ghostwriting, CEO's such as Poussot cannot vouch firsthand for the accuracy and fairness of their company's science. He lacks the expertise. The buck does not stop at his desk; he is dependent on scientific underlings in such matters.

This affair is another instantiation of my belief that pharma is best led by those with relevant scientific expertise such as Merck under clinician-scientist Dr. Roy Vagelos. (It is perhaps not coincidental that Merck became a shadow of its former self under non-scientist Raymond Gilmartin.)

Wyeth, the world's No. 12 pharmaceutical company by sales, is being bought this fall by No. 1 drugmaker Pfizer.

How appropriate, as Pfizer is led by the former top lawyer for McDonald's and Boston Chicken, bringing to life my "If you've run McDonald's, you can run anything" metaphor. If a wise investor were to take a bearish position on a stock, this merged company would be an excellent candidate.

Finally, another ghostwriter of sorts recently died, Sandford Dody (1918-2009). Dody anonymously penned best selling autobiographies of actresses Bette Davis and Helen Hayes, among many other notables. Such ghostwriting is essentially victimless, as opposed to its counterpart in the scientific domain. However, Mr. Dody had an astute observation about the practice, even when there was no trail of diseased or dead bodies.

Per the WSJ article "A Ghostwriter Who Struggled to Accept Life in the Shadows":

... Mr. Dody, who died July 4 at the age of 90, found the work spiritually destructive. "After all," he wrote, "how does one become a ghost without dying a little?"

In the case of biomedical ghostwriting, the conspirators all "die a little" in purveying their intellectual dishonesty on a trusting public.

It's too bad some of that same public also dies, and not just a little, as wages of professorial ghostwriting sins.

The acknowledgements are where minor contributions and reviews get placed in an ethically-attributed scientific paper. Anyone who does not understand this, or rationalizes "honorary authorship" or similar workarounds to meaningful attribution does not belong in science.

Finally, scientific ghostwriting must stop. I also believe its conspirators should be excluded from receiving public money for research and excluded from the biomedical literature for a good, long period of time.

-- SS

8:42 AM