October 26, 2017
Podcast: Conflicts of interest at World Conference of Science Journalists
Michael Joyce produces multimedia at HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
Today marks the opening of the 10th World Conference of Science Journalists in San Francisco.
Over 1,300 people will be in attendance, and that’s a big number.
But there’s an even bigger number that may not get as much attention but really should: The conference is receiving $400,000 from biomedical giant, Johnson & Johnson, and another $200,000 from various companies such as Bayer, Sanofi, 23andMe, and AstraZeneca.
In this podcast we ask the question: Should health care journalists — or their professional organizations — take money from the people they report on regularly?
In the podcast I mention this primer: The Trail of Tainted Funding. Our team invested a lot of effort in making this a go-to site for learning more about conflicts of interest in healthcare, academics, public relations, and journalism.
It’s a living and breathing document that we keep up-to-date with specific examples of these troublesome relationships. I very highly recommend it as both a starting point, and long-term reference.
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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