A Viewpoint article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Confluence, Not Conflict of Interest: Name Change Necessary,” caught the eye of Dr. Richard Lehman, who writes the wonderful journal review blog for The BMJ.
First, an excerpt from the JAMA piece to give you a sense of what it’s about:
“The term conflict of interest is pejorative. It is confrontational and presumptive of inappropriate behavior. Rather, the focus should be on the objective, which is to align secondary interests with the primary objective of the endeavor—to benefit patients and society—in a way that minimizes the risk of bias. A better term—indicative of the objective—would be confluence of interest, implying an alignment of primary and secondary interests. In this regard, the individuals and entities liable to bias extend far beyond the investigator and the sponsor; they include departments, research institutes, and universities. The potential for bias also extends to nonprofit funders, such as the National Institutes of Health and foundations, as well as to journals that might, for example, generate advertising revenue from sponsors.”
Lehman called this article “disingenuous denial.” He wrote:
“I think it marks a low point for JAMA. It aligns the journal with the disingenuous deniers who pretend that conflicts of interest don’t arise when authors and investigators write about work that they have a vested interest in promoting. It joins together JAMA with the New England Journal of Medicine which took a similar stance in a series of opinion papers earlier this year. This is a sort of Republican Tea Party of the soul, where you know you are saying something false and daring people to contradict you, knowing that their very engagement is a form of legitimation.”
We wrote about the New England Journal of Medicine series earlier this year.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (3)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Tim Church
November 10, 2015 at 10:38 amNon-monetary conflicts of interest are real and everyone has them. To conflate such conflicts with the economic conflicts that are at the heart of COI policies is totally disingenuous and an attempt to blunt the perception that economic conflicts are undesirable. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
Thomas Concannon
November 17, 2015 at 7:25 amI read this opinion piece differently. Rather than promoting a denial of conflict, it recommends we expand the search for bias-inducing relationships. This notion is presented in the following quote: “In this regard, the individuals and entities liable to bias extend far beyond the investigator and the sponsor; they include departments, research institutes, and universities.” I, for one, consider the current rules on COI as disingenuous, amounting to little more than academics pointing their fingers at the biases induced by relationships outside of academia. Current rules allow academics to ignore bias induced through their own relationships with teaching hospitals. These behemoths, though not for profit, are just as hungry for revenue as the instituitions that manufacture healthcare products. How else can you explain an $87 charge for aspirin? In full disclosure, I have a financial relationship with a hospital and it amounts to more than $5000.
jerome schofferman
November 17, 2015 at 1:41 pmI fully agree with the comments of Dr Lehman. The opinion that conflict of interest should be replaced by confluence was the consensus of a two-day conference. The entire conference is available for viewing and listening. The conference was primarily focused on medical research. Many if not most participants had direct or indirect ties to industry including some venture capitalists. There was minimal to no discussion of how COI might affect patient care. despite the stated intention of their meeting, the most cynical part of me might call it collusion of interest.
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