The growing financial ties between Big Pharma and medical publications are raising concerns over the integrity of the scientific review process. While medical journals and their editors play a crucial role in scientific discourse, there is a growing concern in the industry that industry influence may be affecting the peer-review process. In recent years, there has been an “alarming” increase in clinical trials permitted based on poor or inconclusive data, and hundreds of articles claiming to be authored by accredited physicians have turned out to be authored by paid writers, according to Science Alert.
While the United States has made efforts to increase the transparency of physician conflicts of interest, a recent analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed that the problem of financial ties between industry and journal editors is only growing. The analysis examined direct payments made to FDA advisors by firms whose drugs were being voted on for approval, finding that 37% of physician advisers who voted on the committee’s panel received more than $10,000 across a four-year period from Big Pharma. Of the close to $25 million in personal payments or “research support,” the 16 top-earning advisers received more than $300,000 each.
Furthermore, a peer-reviewed study by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) examined payments made to editors of the world’s most influential medical journals from industry sources. Of the journals that were eligible for payment, over 50% of editors received money from the pharmaceutical industry – in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars. A four-year-long peer-reviewed study published by PLOS examined 35 different journals and concluded that a significant number of editors received payment during the study period. The study found that 447 of the “top tier” editors of 35 journals met the payment inclusion criteria. The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conducted a study that found out of the 305 journals studied, 214 received industry payments.
The consequences of industry influence over medical journals can be severe. Recent civil and criminal controversies surrounding Big Pharma, such as pharmaceutical giant Merck pulling the drug Vioxx from the market after withholding information about the dangers of the drug, or Pfizer being fined for misbranding their painkiller, highlight the serious implications of financial ties between industry and medical publications.
Despite the gravity of the situation, the issue has gone largely unnoticed by the media. One explanation could be that major pharmaceutical players pay billions in advertising revenue to the mainstream media every year. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical industry spent more money than any other industry to lobby Congress and Federal agencies in 2022. The industry’s powerful trade association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), urged senators in a public letter to reject a bill aimed at lowering medical and pharmaceutical costs for elderly Americans.
In conclusion, the growing financial ties between Big Pharma and medical publications raise concerns over the integrity of the scientific review process. While the United States has made efforts to increase the transparency of physician conflicts of interest, recent studies indicate that the problem of industry influence over medical journals is only growing. The serious implications of financial ties between industry and medical publications, coupled with the pharmaceutical industry’s significant lobbying power, highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the industry.