In the editorial section of today's Washington Post, there is a story involving the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Five months after the May 2008 edition of JAMA was published, a professor wrote a letter to JAMA to tell them of a conflict of interest involving a researcher in one of their published articles. It seems that the researcher is on the speakers' bureau of the pharmaceutical company involved in research for an antidepressant drug -- a big no no in the world of medical research. The professor got no response after 5 months, then decided to send the letter again -- only this time cc'ing a reporter at the NY Times and mentioned the allegations again in an article he wrote that was published on the British Medical Journal's website. As a result of this professor's actions, JAMA recently announced a change in its complaint policy. Now JAMA states that they will inform all people who make a complaint that they are not to alert the media of their complaint until an investigation is completed.
The ethical problem in this example is that JAMA failed to investigate any conflicts of interest in their research. If JAMA fails to respond to accusations of conflicts of interest -- particularly after 5 months -- why shouldn't the accuser go to the public to make others aware of their unethical behavior?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That is an amazing point. I think that anyone has the right to talk to the press. I think that are many unethical examples in this case. The fact that the company did not response was unethical and then telling the public that they could not tell the media is unethical as well. I think that this takes away from one rights. I think that it would unethical if someone did not report unethical actions.
Whoa! I see the professor as being a considerate person who became frustrated with the lack of urgency on the part of JAMA to respond. I think the JAMA has to move with urgency to anyone who approaches them with such sensitive infomration. Five months is a long time. I think the request to a person not alert the media has to be married with a series of timely updates and a finished investigation to the person sharing information. In a modern society one can not keep a lid on bad news.
Post a Comment