One week from today, Thursday, June 16, Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, and her PharmedOut.org project based at Georgetown University begin a two-day conference, “Pharma Knows Best? Managing Medical Knowledge.”
Topics include ghostwriting, pharma-free continuing medical education, disease awareness campaigns and, in general, academic scientists’ relationships with industry.
Speakers include:
Marcia Angell MD, Harvard Medical School
Virginia Barbour MD, PLoS Medicine
Arnold Relman MD, Harvard Medical School
Joel Lexchin MD MSc, York University, University of Toronto
Gordon Schiff MD, Harvard Medical School
Eric Campbell PhD, Harvard Medical School
Shannon Brownlee MS, New America Health Policy Program
Carl Elliott MD PhD, University of Minnesota School of Medicine
Edmund Pellegrino MD, Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University
Curt Furberg MD PhD, Wake Forest University, North Carolina
The other day Duff Wilson of the New York Times contrasted this event with another upcoming event hosted by “a nonprofit group called the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators… to explain the reasons to support collaborations between the industry and doctors.” Excerpt from Wilson’s post:
“The second conference was co-founded by Dr. Thomas P. Stossel, a professor at Harvard Medical School and director of translational medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He has seen himself as a sometimes lonely voice to speak in favor of industry collaborations with researchers and medical schools.
Dr. Stossel argues that the financial aid and research interactions benefit patients and advance science. He will lead a panel called, “Academia/Industry Collaboration: Why is it under attack by politicians, deans and the media?”
Other A.C.R.E. panels will discuss what industry, patients and medical students should do to push back against the type of thinking generally represented at the Georgetown conference.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like