Ghostwriting the R.I.P.

This viewpoint piece was inspired by the recent PLoS Medicine Debate - What Should be Done to Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?

Ghostwriting is not the disease, it is a symptom. If one were to ameliorate this specific indicator, the pathogen would rear its ugly head elsewhere in medical publishing. In other words, if one wants to limit the negative impact ghostwriting has on academia and industry, the underlying problem must be addressed.

And the practice of ghostwriting is almost as sinister as its label. It involves an individual (or corporation) contributing to a scientific paper without being credited. Now this may seem like the individual was shortchanged, but it is the reader who suffers in the end. Often, the purpose of this technique is to obfuscate where the controlling interest behind a body of work lies and to hide the ulterior motives.

The reason ghostwriting is so deleterious to the trustworthiness of medical science lies in the fact that it successfully circumvents established protocols intended to maintain a transparent lens between the reader and the author. These directives include requiring all authors to declare any conflicts of interest, and because these ghostwriters are not authors, their motives are not disclosed.

Because ghostwriting is a hidden practice, the true prevalence is difficult to report, and even if numbers were available they would most likely suffer from undercoverage. Although the link between pharmaceutical industry and medical academia may be difficult to ascertain, that between industry and government is a matter of numbers. According to the Center of Public Integrity, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America) spent $22.7 million on lobbying in 2007 alone. And each individual pharmaceutical corporation spent millions more on their own as well.

In other words, the ghostwriting issue extends well beyond the academic definition of authorship or concerns over academic transparency. The problem is simply the rash on a measles sufferer or the runny nose of a person with the common cold -- a symptom of a much deeper and more important problem. It is for this reason that scientists must endeavor to extricate themselves from the ubiquitous reaches of industrial and pecuniary interests. When medical researchers recognize the problem and act with integrity on it, public trust in both academia and industry may one day be restored. However, if the underlying cause is ignored, the only activity left for legitimate medical research may very well be inscribing its own tombstone.

Nathan

America's Shame

In consideration of recent developments, I am going to entirely ignore the final third of my blog’s title and focus exclusively on social justice, and the lack thereof. Outrage is the only term that can accurately describe my emotional state upon seeing this excerpt from a UN General Assembly Proceedings:

By a vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States) and no abstentions, the Committee also approved a resolution on the right to food, by which the Assembly would “consider it intolerable” that more than 6 million children still died every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday, and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population.

Now as if this travesty had not sufficiently turned my stomach, the US continued down the road of moral penury with a startling apathy:

After the vote, the representative of the United States said he was unable to support the text because he believed the attainment of the right to adequate food was a goal that should be realized progressively. In his view, the draft contained inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights.

Perhaps we should congratulate our representative for their obviously super-human skills of perception, and for being the only one lucid enough to recognize the blatant “inaccuracy” of recognizing the injustice of childhood malnutrition.

As a US citizen, I felt a patriotic duty to make my objection to this ignoble deed heard, and to not allow my government to proceed with impunity while disregarding human rights. To this end, I hope all of you readers will share this position, and act upon your objection in any of a variety of methods.

Nathan

Academia vs. Industry

There has been much discussion as to the primary crossroads in the life of any scientist. One must choose a life in either academia or industry. This choice, at its heart, is fundamentally a choice between penury or prosperity, because those entering academia will earn significantly less amounts than those who receive an industry emolument.

On a cursory examination of the previous sentence, it seems the choice would be abundantly clear: the money. However, several other variables come into play, chief among them being what often is the nemesis of money. Morality.

In the most basic terms, academia is the moral high road. In most cases, one’s research is for the good of all humanity rather than the profits of his company’s shareholders. Consequently, it seems clear that scientific research through academia is more in accordance with the basic tenets of social justice.

Nathan

Science is Social Justice

Some newcomers to this website may initially be circumpsect: what does science, the empirical observation and study of natural phenomena, have anything to do with social justice? The answer to this question is multifaceted, but easily summarized with: science IS social justice.

Think about it. The noblest aspect of science is research that seeks to ameliorate the human condition. Whether it be through improved computing in mathematical or computer science research or greater longevity resulting from advances in biomedicine.

Now social justice, too, can be described in the same way. In my view, social justice is the similar improvement of the human condition. In other words, if social justice is a goal, then science is one mean to that end.

I must qualify this argument with a critical disclaimer. That is, not ALL research is just. One must look no further than Nazi atrocities performed in the name of science to know that. But perhaps these problems can define science, rather than disparage it:

True science is social justice.

Nathan

Partners in Health

Partners in Health (PIH) was founded in 1987 by Paul Farmer, Thomas J. White, and Todd McCormack to provide critically-needed primary care to denizens of the impoverished nation Haiti. This modest mission in Haiti has expaned to an international program, with posts in Russia, Lesotho, Peru, and Rwanda.

The focus of PIH is community-based healthcare. In other words, PIH recognizes the interconnectedness of society and science, of socioeconomics and health. This innovative approach improves treatment outcomes through the integrated tactics.

PIH is on the frontier of science and social justice, and therefore is the perfect way to start off this blog that shares its mission. PIH is a medical humanitarian organization funded by private donations, please donate.

Nathan

First Post

Hi all,

Here at SJS we will be discussing general topics concerning social justice, science, and their points of intersection. Any post is of course the opinion of its author, and does not represent the official position of this site or the author’s employer. I would like to make this blog into more of a discussion area rather than a soapbox. Therefore, I encourage all visitors to leave us comments expressing their opinions, whether they be in agreement or not with the author. Enjoy!

Nathan