Investigación clínica: "Reputaciones en venta"

Panorama's account of GlaxoSmithKline's successful attempts to market Seroxat for use in children, despite the fact that its own published trial found evidence of serious adverse effects and failed to show benefit, is fascinating but depressingly familiar.

What is even more depressing is that such behaviour is still so widely tolerated within medicine.

There has been no shortage of outcry or official condemnation - including clear statements from the World Association of Medical Editors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and industry itself through its Good Publication Practice guidelines - that undeclared conflicts of interest and ghost writing are unacceptable.

But, you might reasonably ask, what use are such huffings and puffings in the face of the individual rewards on offer from drug companies.

Let's be clear what is and is not acceptable. There is nothing wrong with getting help from medical writers, provided they and their source of funding are clearly acknowledged.

Nor is there anything wrong with academics or clinicians working with industry, provided they remain personally accountable for everything they say.

What is clearly wrong is writers, academics, or clinicians concealing under their coat tails an army of company spin doctors intent on distorting the scientific record. (Más)