Now I'm not a scientist, but it does bother me when so many scientists are being maligned, undermined, or labeled as suspect.
Consider the article in the April 20 New York Times, "Study Finds a Link of Drug Makers to Psychiatrists" that questioned the modus operandi of otherwise respected and reputable scientists simply because they had at some point in their careers consulted with and/or received financial remuneration from the dreaded drug-making industry.
In this instance, a researcher at Tufts University conducted a study that determined that 56% percent of the experts who worked on the 1994 edition of a manual called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual had at least one monetary relationship with a "drug maker" between the years 1989 to 2004. The article went on to relate that 100% of the experts who worked on sections devoted to severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia also had some sort of financial ties to "drug makers."
The manual is widely used by some 400,000 mental health workers, from psychiatrists to nurses, to diagnose disorders in patients, and health insurers use the manual to determine coverage. Surely this information had some relevance.
I read on and patiently waited for the twist of this rambling story -- the coup de grace that would connect the dots. In anticipation, I even envisioned how the plot might evolve like any well-written story. Might the drug makers to whom they alluded in the headline really be "drug dealers" -- you know, the bad guys distributing illegal and deadly drugs to an addicted market? Might the manual hold secret codes meant to be read by a handful of villainous, illicit-substance-pushing nurses and psychiatrists? I read on.
"What we're saying is it's outrageous that the manual doesn't have a disclosure policy," lamented the lead author of the study.
Huh? Doesn't have a disclosure policy? Is that what all this was about, or did I miss something? Surely there was a more sinister link that made the need for a disclosure statement of relevance to the public -- not to mention readers of the New York Times story and the 400,000 medical professionals who would use the manual.
It did not appear troubling to me that pharmaceutical companies, which produce life-saving and life enhancing drugs that we all benefit from, might on occasion take consultations from, or otherwise retain, scientific experts in the same field of interest in the course of research and development. (On the contrary, I'd be suspicious if their paths never crossed.) Nor am I surprised that scientific experts were compensated for their time and effort, that compensation often contributing just a small part of their lifetime earnings. It's the way our economy works.
And interestingly, while the article was about disclosure and funding, it never bothered to disclose to me who funded the study itself, or even why. Yes, while we're at it, I want to know the history of the study authors' finances, as well as that of the journalist who thought it worth writing about. Or am I simply to assume that their interests are strictly "pure"?
If you have an axe to grind with scientists, then show me your proof of scientific error. Otherwise, in the future, please spare me the cloak and dagger innuendo.
Cheryl Martin is an associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
