Ghostwriting -- why they do it

A prominent hormone replacement therapy researcher exposed by the New York Times last December to have put his name on ghostwritten studies for estrogen drug company Wyeth Pharmaceuticals has broken his silence to say he's sorry.

Seattle blogger William Heisel, a former award-winning health reporter for the LA Times, managed to reach Australisn researcher John Eden by e-mail, where others had failed.

He was surprisingly forthcoming and said he regrets the decision.

"We academics are under some pressure to 'publish or perish,'" Eden wrote. "Performance evaluation of at least Australian academics includes the number and quality of publications per year. In retrospect, I was probably naïve and I wouldn't do it now."

His comments cut to the heart of what observers have said is at the heart of ghostwriting -- professors are under pressure to publish papers, and to publish often, or see their careers suffer. So when someone comes along to help them get more publishing credits to their name, they agree.

In a column by Peggy Curran, the Montreal Gazette wondered if the pressure to publish was behind the involvment with ghostwriters by McGill University professor Barbara Sherwin.

In a written statement last weekend, Sherwin said she “made an error in agreeing to have my name attributed to that article without making it clear that others contributed to it.” Sherwin said she was not paid for the article, and believes the article reflected “sound and thorough scholarship.”

So was Sherwin duped or simply sloppy, so desperately keen to publish she was willing to blur the lines of ethical conduct? If, as she says, the article went through a peer review, why didn’t she mention the other authors? How often do academics, under pressure to deliver on deadline, rely on a ghost for hire?

Jocalyn Clark, a University of Toronto assistant professor of medicine and a senior editor at PLoS, says universities have a responsiblity to get tough on ghostwriting. PLoS, along with the New York Times, managed to get 1,500 court documents on ghostwriting made public, and then put them online.

Comments

[amblet]

This reminds me of the sympathy and understanding given to the Greyhound cannibal. There must be something to the fact that some people are coddled when they commit wrongdoing and others are thrown to the wolves. What is it?

It's probably the Mary Poppins syndrome. Have to prevent at all costs a public panic to all "take their money out of the bank."

So let's draw from this exposé then, and all the talking, that if people who work in areas where public trust is at risk do something wrong, they will be glossed up.

The beheader was made over to have looked perfectly acceptable to the person who sold him a ticket and to the driver who let him on board. In fact the man was really fine except for an unfortunate relapse into another personality just at the wrong moment...

And look, even though it was a very isolated event, Greyhound has gone overboard to institute all sorts of changes. Never mind that these updates and ticket price increases benefit Greyhound more than the passengers.

Publishing these ghostwriting scams is helping the perpetrators. We now are into the explaining and toning down phase and how everything will be made so much better after this. This blog is unfortunately enabling this exercise. There is no debate. Wrong is wrong and the public has every right to panic.

[Michael Kirsch, M.D]

Medical ghostwriting? I offer thoughts on posting last wk at www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com. If only these medical 'authors' had spoke to my kids first, they would still be traveling on the ethical high road. It's shameful behavior even if only a few medical academics are culpable. So many of our ethical bright lines are at risk.