An article on the matter published online Wednesday by the journal Nature quoted Dr. Haffner as saying: “Why I sent it is a mystery. I don’t really understand it. I wasn’t feeling well. It was bad judgment."
He wasn't feeling well? Is that a valid excuse from him? He doesn't even know why he sent it? That probably will not sit well with any journal or anyone else in the scientific community. Just because he is a prominent diabetes expert does not give him the right to do this. He's only hurting the peer review process for others and himself. How would he react if someone leaked his research to someone in industry? This just makes the whole publishing process more unfavorable. I guess these are the negatives you have to weight when deciding to publish (other than the cost and length of time).
Dr. Haffner probably sent the article to GSK because he was closely tied to them. However, I find it interesting that NEJM (and maybe other journals for that matter) do not screen for conflict of interest before sending out articles for review. Although this may be a time consuming process, I think it would help to uphold the integrity of the peer review system. Since this article opens with Senator Grassley, I am curious to see whether Congress will instigate laws that limit doctor and pharmaceutical company interactions, because this may also help to uphold peer review integrity.
NEJM penalizes reviewers for breaking guidelines. According to the Nature article (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/pdf/451509a.pdf), once a person has broken confidentiality, he/she is banned from reviewing and publishing review articles and editorials in the NEJM. So at least there is currently some form of regulation within the system.
On a completely separate note, all of the spokespeople cited in the NY Times article are women. I think this is a good example of women "working behind the scenes", something we discussed in class.
I'm not sure what the previous commenter meant by "women working behind the scenes", but in class we briefly touched on common roles that women have in the scientific community. It was suggested that women work in lower-level editing positions at scientific journals and thus do a majority of the editing and publication work without receiving much recognition for it.
I agree completely with previous posts that this was an obvious abuse of privilege by Dr. Haffner. What he did was selfish and dishonorable. In terms of why he did it, I think it simply highlights the fact that wealthy pharmaceutical companies in the United States regularly overstep their bounds and manipulate health officials with monetary incentives.
I honestly believe that the problem does not lie with the peer review system itself, but rather the flaws of the people enacting it (in this case, a corrupt doctor). As trite and cliche as it may sound, no system is perfect. I do not think that a new system of scientific review would be nearly as efficient as the current one in place. That being said, I do however think that perhaps scientific journals should perform more regular and in-depth investigations into their reviewers. This way, they can steer clear of sending individuals articles at all related to their vested financial interests.
Previous posters have alluded to Dr. Haffner’s ties to GSK, as motive for his violation of NEJM policy. However, I imagine that such “close ties” felt by Dr. Haffner were not a result of his employment – he only received $75,000 from the organization in the past 9 years, that averages out to a little more than $8,000/year… a figure hardly worth risking your reputation and career on. Rather I am inclined to believe that Haffner’s actions were a result of his personal relationships with GSK employees (after all, science is a social discipline) and his desire to alert them to potential concerns with their product.
That being said, while I completely support the previously proposed idea of instituting some sort of “screening for conflict” procedure, I’m not sure how such a process could effectively be implemented. While something as simple as having the reviewer provide a list of previous employers or society memberships could eliminate motives stemming from current or previously gained monetary benefits, such a system could not rule out, for example, all personal friendships between scientists/industry employees.
While the peer review system may have its flaws, I believe we are only presented with 2 options, completely throwing out the system or revising some of its flaws. While we might like to look upon science as a pure and infallible source of knowledge, we must recognize that it is of human production and regulation, and, as a result, can never be foolproof.
6 comments:
An article on the matter published online Wednesday by the journal Nature quoted Dr. Haffner as saying: “Why I sent it is a mystery. I don’t really understand it. I wasn’t feeling well. It was bad judgment."
He wasn't feeling well? Is that a valid excuse from him? He doesn't even know why he sent it? That probably will not sit well with any journal or anyone else in the scientific community. Just because he is a prominent diabetes expert does not give him the right to do this. He's only hurting the peer review process for others and himself. How would he react if someone leaked his research to someone in industry? This just makes the whole publishing process more unfavorable. I guess these are the negatives you have to weight when deciding to publish (other than the cost and length of time).
Dr. Haffner probably sent the article to GSK because he was closely tied to them. However, I find it interesting that NEJM (and maybe other journals for that matter) do not screen for conflict of interest before sending out articles for review. Although this may be a time consuming process, I think it would help to uphold the integrity of the peer review system. Since this article opens with Senator Grassley, I am curious to see whether Congress will instigate laws that limit doctor and pharmaceutical company interactions, because this may also help to uphold peer review integrity.
NEJM penalizes reviewers for breaking guidelines. According to the Nature article (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/pdf/451509a.pdf), once a person has broken confidentiality, he/she is banned from reviewing and publishing review articles and editorials in the NEJM. So at least there is currently some form of regulation within the system.
On a completely separate note, all of the spokespeople cited in the NY Times article are women. I think this is a good example of women "working behind the scenes", something we discussed in class.
Wait? "Women working behind the scenes." What do you mean by this?
I'm not sure what the previous commenter meant by "women working behind the scenes", but in class we briefly touched on common roles that women have in the scientific community. It was suggested that women work in lower-level editing positions at scientific journals and thus do a majority of the editing and publication work without receiving much recognition for it.
I agree completely with previous posts that this was an obvious abuse of privilege by Dr. Haffner. What he did was selfish and dishonorable. In terms of why he did it, I think it simply highlights the fact that wealthy pharmaceutical companies in the United States regularly overstep their bounds and manipulate health officials with monetary incentives.
I honestly believe that the problem does not lie with the peer review system itself, but rather the flaws of the people enacting it (in this case, a corrupt doctor). As trite and cliche as it may sound, no system is perfect. I do not think that a new system of scientific review would be nearly as efficient as the current one in place. That being said, I do however think that perhaps scientific journals should perform more regular and in-depth investigations into their reviewers. This way, they can steer clear of sending individuals articles at all related to their vested financial interests.
Previous posters have alluded to Dr. Haffner’s ties to GSK, as motive for his violation of NEJM policy. However, I imagine that such “close ties” felt by Dr. Haffner were not a result of his employment – he only received $75,000 from the organization in the past 9 years, that averages out to a little more than $8,000/year… a figure hardly worth risking your reputation and career on. Rather I am inclined to believe that Haffner’s actions were a result of his personal relationships with GSK employees (after all, science is a social discipline) and his desire to alert them to potential concerns with their product.
That being said, while I completely support the previously proposed idea of instituting some sort of “screening for conflict” procedure, I’m not sure how such a process could effectively be implemented. While something as simple as having the reviewer provide a list of previous employers or society memberships could eliminate motives stemming from current or previously gained monetary benefits, such a system could not rule out, for example, all personal friendships between scientists/industry employees.
While the peer review system may have its flaws, I believe we are only presented with 2 options, completely throwing out the system or revising some of its flaws. While we might like to look upon science as a pure and infallible source of knowledge, we must recognize that it is of human production and regulation, and, as a result, can never be foolproof.
Post a Comment