Economy & Trade, Headlines, North America

SCIENCE-U.S.: Money, Politics Increasingly Influence Research

Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON, Jul 13 2004 (IPS) - Scientific integrity, specifically in public health, is being sacrificed by political and commercial interests, according to participants in a major conference here.

The latest example of this was highlighted in a report released Monday at the ‘Integrity in Science’ conference, which accused several leading medical journals of failing to disclose financial conflicts-of-interest by contributing scientists.

Participants at the event organised by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) fingered the Bush administration for the current lack of accountability and the increasing influence of big drug companies in public health matters.

The CSPI report, ‘Unrevealed: Non-Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Four Leading Medical and Scientific Journals’, highlighted the alleged failure of some industry-funded scientists to reveal sources of funding when they submitted articles to medical journals that are considered authoritative in their fields.

This new critique of scientific integrity comes amid rising concerns here over the manipulation of science to serve political or commercial interests.

"In countless subtle and not so subtle ways," Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington, a clinical psychologist, told the conference, "the administration and Republican majorities who control the House and Senate are deliberately and systematically suppressing discussion and criticism and distorting the scientific process."

The call for greater scientific objectivity and a de-politicisation of science-based policy under the current administration has been picked up by leading scientists and environmentalists in recent weeks.

In February, a letter released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 20 Nobel laureates and two science advisors to former President Bill Clinton called for congressional hearings into the state of public access to objective scientific information. It also accused President George W Bush’s White House of suppressing or ignoring scientific findings that do not support its views.

At the same time, high-profile environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr condemned the administration’s politicisation of science for the interests of drug companies and chemical manufacturers in a much-cited article published by ‘The Nation Weekly’.

Kennedy highlighted the administration’s handling of research showing that Atrazine, a commonly used agricultural pesticide, may cause prostate cancer in men and gross deformities in frogs.

Instead of banning the pesticide, as was done by the European Union (EU), the Bush administration responded by taking the ongoing study into the health effects of the chemical from the government’s own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assigning it to Syngenta, the chemicals manufacturer.

In doing so, officials effectively assisted a corporation to continue distributing their product while concealing the public-health detriments it was creating, Kennedy charged.

According to Baird, "within the scientific community the effects of the administration’s (actions) have been chilling and demoralising."

"Researchers are practising self-censorship or avoiding government careers entirely," he said. "Lifetimes of study are being abandoned, international collaborations are being curtailed, studies and data that could lead to valuable life-saving information are being neglected or blocked … and some of the best scientific talent in the world is starting to leave our country."

The congressman urged scientists to actively contribute and campaign for politicians who defend scientific integrity by standing up to large chemical and drug companies seeking to influence scientific research.

CSPI’s report, by Merrill Goozner, asserts, "The exponential growth of financial conflicts-of-interest in medical and academic research represents a serious challenge to guardians of scientific integrity."

Scientists and academic medical journals are displaying an alarming trend in their failure to identify and disclose sources of funding, especially from major drug manufacturers and industrial corporations, it adds.

Journals highlighted in the study included the ‘New England Journal of Medicine’ (NEJM), the ‘Journal of the American Medical Association’ (JAMA), ‘Environment Health Perspectives’ (EHP) and ‘Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology’ (TAP).

Between December 2003 and February 2004, the CSPI identified 13 articles (eight percent) in the four journals in which relevant conflicts-of-interest were not disclosed.

Cases of failure to identify significant conflicts-of-interest included:

– A University of Arkansas professor who filed for a patent for his research on the effects of multiple myeloma (a cancer of the plasma cell) less than three weeks after an article co-authored by him appeared in the NEJM. The article also failed to disclose his relationship as a paid consultant for drug companies developing vaccines for the condition.

– Two scientists at the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology whose article in NEJM about the formation of plaque in coronary arteries failed to disclose their consulting relationships with over 20 private companies, including Medtronic, Guidant, Boston Scientific and Novartis, in the heart disease treatment field.

– An article on kidney disease by a National Institute of Health scientist in JAMA failed to disclose his consulting relationships with Merck & Co, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer Inc, all of which would benefit financially from the conclusions drawn in the study.

The CSPI report offered three steps journal editors could take to ensure that conflict-of-interest policies are followed by contributing authors.

Authors of original articles, reviews and editorials should be required to disclose to journal editors all their financial arrangements with private firms within the past three years, whether or not those arrangements were directly related to the subject of the article. Any patents, patent applications or intentions to apply for a patent based on their research should also be fully divulged.

In addition, journal editors should tighten their disclosure policies and impose strong sanctions for the failure by authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Such sanctions could include a three-year ban on publication within the pages of that journal when an undisclosed conflict of interest is brought to light.