Scientific Integrity

[Asher]

There's an interesting article in the New York Times about a controversy concerning a tobacco industry-supported cancer study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/health/research/26lung.html

To me, the most interesting quote is this:

On Monday, The Journal of the American Medical Association published corrections about unreported financial disclosures from Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz. The patent and pending patents reported by The Cancer Letter “are relevant to these publications,” an editors’ note stated. Editors at the journal were not aware of Dr. Henschke’s association with Liggett, said Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis, the journal’s editor in chief.

“I would never publish a paper dealing with lung cancer from a person who had taken money from a tobacco company,” Dr. DeAngelis said.

I'm appalled by this statement. Science should be objective! It doesn't matter who funds a study; what matters is whether the findings can be replicated.

 

[Saully]

The operative word is "should." To me, her statement is too strong. But the affiliation should definitely be disclosed.

Also, the article discusses that there is "a growing awareness of the influence that companies can have over research outcomes, even when donations are at arm’s length." From reading the article, it sounds like the medical community has placed the burden on the researchers to show that they have not been influenced by the companies.