Volume 22, Issue 4 - Good Pharma

Legal remedies for medical ghostwriting: Imposing fraud liability on guest authors of ghostwritten articles

Authors: Simon Stern, Trudo Lemmens

Abstract

Download the full article

References

1. Lemmens T. Leopards in the temple: restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene. JL Med Ethics 2004;32:641–657.
2. Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, Wager E, Jacobs A, et al. What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Med 2009;6:e23. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023
3. Sismondo S. Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences. Soc Stud Sci 2009;39:171–198.
4. Matheson A. Corporate science and the husbandry of scientific and medical knowledge by the pharmaceutical industry. BioSocieties 2008;3:355–382.
5. Healy D, Cattell D. Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:22–27.
6. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008;299:1800–1812.
7. Fugh-Berman AJ. The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold ‘HRT.’ PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000335 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000335
8. Jureidini JN, McHenry LB, Mansfield PR. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine 2008;20:183–183.
9. Johnson KR, Lassere MND. Guest authorship, mortality reporting, and integrity in rofecoxib studies. JAMA 2008;300:900; author reply 904–906.
10. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998;280:222–224.
11. Smith R. Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2005;2:e138 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
12. Moffatt B, Elliott C. Ghost marketing: pharmaceutical companies and ghostwritten journal articles. Perspect Biol Med 2007;50:18–31.
13. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, et al. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 2007;4:e19. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019
14. United States Senate Committee on Finance Ghostwriting in medical literature minority staff report, 111th Congress, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member. 2010. p.
15. Biagioli M. Rights or rewards? Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law 2000;27:83–108.
16. Edmond G. Judging the scientific and medical literature: some legal implications of changes to biomedical research and publication. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2008;28:523–561.
17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 509 U.S. 579 1993.
18. Lexchin J. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167–1170.
19. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454–465.
20. Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Ludwig W-D, et al. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:279–285.
21. Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Lieb K, et al. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences: part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:295–301.
22. Caplovitz A. Turning medicine into snake oil, how pharmaceutical marketers put patients at risk. Boston and Washington (D.C.): U.S. PIRG; 2006 .
23. International Committee of Medical Journal Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: authorship and contributorship. 2009. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html
24. World Association of Medical. Ghost writing initiated by commercial companies. 2005. Available from: http://www.wame.org/resources/policies#ghost
25. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE code of conduct. 2011 Available from: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf
26. The PLoS Medicine Editors. Ghostwriting: the dirty little secret of medical publishing that just got bigger. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000156 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156
27. McHenry LB, Jureidini J. Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Accountability in Research 2008;15(3):152–167.
28. Smith R. Lapses at the New England journal of medicine. J R Soc Med 2006;99:380–382.
29. Sismondo S. Ghost management: how much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Med 2007;4:e286. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286
30. Moffat B. Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship. Account Res 2011;18(2):76–90.
31. Baty P. Academic made ‘untrue’ declaration about ‘full access’ to research material, GMC finds. Times Higher Education. 10 November 2009. Available from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409013
32. Irvine D. A short history of the General Medical Council. Medical Education 2006;40(3):202–211. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02397.x
33. Picard A. Does self-regulation work for the medical profession? The Globe and Mail, 19 August 2007. Available from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article775586.ece
34. Lacasse JR, Leo J. Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research. BMC Research Notes 2011;4:27.
35. Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of America, 582 F.3d 886 (8th Cir 2009).
36. R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5 [Canada]; Magill v. Magill, (2006) 231 A.L.R. 277 (HC) [Australia]; Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd (2005) [United Kingdom]; Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (I) P. Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 587 (S.C.) [India].
37. Edmond G. Supersizing Daubert science for litigation and its implications for legal practice and scientific research. Villanova Law Review 2007;52:857–924.
38. 31 U.S.C. 1 3729.
39. Strom ex rel. U.S. v. Scios, Inc., 676 F. Supp.2d 884 (N.D. Cal. 2009).
40. 18 U.S.C. 1 2.
41. 18 U.S.C. 11 1961–62.
42. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 1985.
43. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U.S. 606 1985.
44. Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258 1992.
45. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131 2008.
46. R. v. Stoltz 84 C.C.C. (3d) 422 (B.C.C.A.) [Canada]; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, [1994] 1 S.C.C. 1 [India]; McDonald v. McDonald (1965), 39 A.J.L.R. 179 (H.C.) [Australia]; Ul-Haq v. Shah [2010], 1 All E.R. 73 (C.A.) [U.K.] 1993.
47. Johnson v Bell, 605 F.3d 333 (6th Cir 2010).
48. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 1944.
49. Hatch v. Ooms, 69 F. Supp. 788 (D.D.C.1947), rev'd sub nom. Dorsey v. Kingsland, 173 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1949), rev'd, 338 U.S. 318 (1949).