Though the information came to light in connection with lawsuits over Vioxx, the practice is not unique to
Merck. Ghostwriting medical research is common in the
pharmaceutical industry, according to many insiders.
The standard should be clear for any scientist asked to lend
name and credentials to an article, says Ruth Faden, director of
the Hopkins bioethics institute, in an article published by
BaltimoreSun.com.
"If I have not contributed in a significant intellectual way to
the science being reported or the review of analysis being
reported, then I ought not be an author of that manuscript," said
Faden.
That seems to be a monumental understatement. Taking credit for
the work of another has an unsavory name in academic circles. It's
called "plagiarism," and it can earn a student a failing grade --
or expulsion.
Journalists who fail to properly attribute sources can lose
their jobs and irreparably damage their reputations.
Yet, call it "ghostwriting," and the same shameful and deceitful
practice suddenly takes on an aura of respectability -- and lines
the pockets of the people involved.
If it were merely dishonest, it would be one thing. In the case
of medical research, however, the lives of others are at stake.
The issue has taken on graver importance because the US Food and Drug
Administration is considering whether to allow the
dissemination of articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals to
physicians as tools to guide them in deciding whether or not to
prescribe a particular drug to a patient for an off-label use.
The bottom line is that virtually everything published about a
particular drug could originate with the manufacturer.
The new FDA proposal requires that articles published in
peer-reviewed journals not be misleading, according to The New York
Times.
It strikes me as both appalling and sad that such a requirement
should have to be articulated.