For the majority of academic medical centers that lack a policy (New York University, Brown University and Baylor College of Medicine, to name a few) Lacasse and Leo outlined basic steps toward developing, implementing and enforcing one in their article. "The main goal of the proposal was to reduce the prevalence of ghostwriting," Lacasse explains. "Why would it stop if there weren't some repercussions?"
Lacasse and Leo suggest that a strict ban be enacted by the deans of academic medical centers following a period of amnesty spanning the remaining months of the 2009–10 academic year, after which any scientist who violates the ban should be deemed guilty of academic misconduct. Lacasse and Leo even recommend that scientists who have participated in ghostwriting in the past should confess, and that their ghostwritten papers be reevaluated and even retracted if appropriate. It is unclear what incentives would exist for scientists to come clean. "We're arguing for a change in culture where it's a very negative thing to have been involved in ghostwriting," Lacasse says.
And whereas their proposal for the ban starts with the deans, Lacasse and Leo say they would love to see a task force within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest biomedical research funder, according to a 2008 article published in BMC Genomics. "Many people who've participated in ghostwriting are recipients of NIH grants," Leo says.
While NIH policy does not use the term "ghostwriting," federal regulations on research misconduct such as plagiarism and fabrication could be applicable to ghostwriting, according to an NIH spokesperson.
In a recent interview on C–SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, NIH Director Francis Collins announced that the agency would issue a "proposed rule" early this year that will require pharmaceutical companies to publicly disclose financial relationships with NIH-funded scientists. "I was shocked by that revelation—that people would allow their names to be used on articles they did not write, that were written for them, particularly by companies that have something to gain by the way the data is presented…. If we want to have the integrity of science preserved, that's not the way to do it," Collins said in the December 21 interview.
NIH is currently drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which could introduce revisions and enhancements to the current regulations, according to a spokesperson. The notice will be posted for public comment as NIH develops the final rule, which is anticipated in summer or fall of 2010.
Lacasse and Leo plan to follow up on their proposal at the beginning of the 2010 academic year, and hope to see evidence of a culture change. Lacasse says most nonmedical academics are astonished that ghostwriting occurs. "Try explaining to a history prof that on the other side of campus a prof is getting credit for work he didn't do!"
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentFair enough. Maybe movie stars, athletes and other famous people should fall under the same rule - or they don't use ghostwriters for their memoirs...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists should be good on science, on doing research - not on writing.
Ghostwriting research shouldn't be an ethical dilemma. It should be banned from all disciplines. Some famous has-been runs a lab with scores of graduate students who do the real research, and the has-been gets the credit?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with rarauj28. The ability to write about science, either in a published paper or a text book, is a rare talent indeed. Science writers should be honoured, not hidden behind the title "Ghostwriter". I think that the only change need be that the writer should be fully acknowledged on the front of the paper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost science these days is a team effort. The writer is a legitimate member of the team.
Well put, Bill Case. As a PhD scientist-turned-professional science writer, I take the accuracy and integrity of the content seriously. Most writing these days is also a team effort, reflected in growing author lists on primary publications- this should be the case with reviews and other pieces as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe emphasis on the term ghostwriting is highly misleading in this article on academic misconduct and corruption. Ghostwriters are simply anonymous professional writers who turn results and conclusions given to them by pharmaceutical companies into publication-ready manuscripts.
The problem lies with the academics who are willing to front as authors of these ghost-written papers. By so doing they assert that the results presented are genuine and the conclusion drawn are valid. This is obviously a barefaced lie. Since these "authors" were not involved in the study they have no way of knowing whether the data are genuine, massaged or outright fabricated. By agreeing to pose as authors - for a handsome fee you can be sure - they collude with the pharmaceutical companies in committing fraud.
The academics participating in this scheme really shouldn't have any illusions about the companies asking them to pose as authors. Big Pharma has little credibility left - too many of their dirty tricks have been exposed. So they try to buy the reputation of independent scientists. But these academics must surely wonder whether this time the data they are asked to present as their own are genuine.
In think there are two distinct issues being discussed and perhaps confused here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly there is the necessary attempt of a legitimate research group to put forward their research findings in the clearest way possible, employing a technical writer to do this. Secondly there is the issue of supposedly reputable professionals being asked to put their name/reputation against a piece of work they had nothing to do with.
I have no problem with the employment of a technical writer on the basis that the credited author has done the research and is signing off on the document. I would say that this is similar in some ways to novel writing, where the author (person with the idea) and the editor (person who knows how books read best) will revise a book between them. This does not mean the authors intent in the book is subverted, but can lead to a better reading book.
I agree however, that the technical writer should also be credited in the article, and that the source of the data/research is specified.
No editor was involved in the writing of this piece (and it shows)
In case someone mis-construes the last remark, I was referring to my own comment :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is not ghostwriting; it's ghost management. As long as there is an unidentified entity behind the scenes (usually the pharma sponsor) directing the study and approving the content of the paper, everyone involved is just an actor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way to fix this is to do away with "authorship" entirely and list each entity and person according to their contribution, as they do in films. The director would be the pharma sponsor; the people currently listed as "authors" would be medical consultants (which is what they are), the publication company and medical writer would be indentified as such, and so on.
Of course this would pull the curtain from the Wizard of Oz show currently known as medical research and publishing. But that's the point. If the medical profession were able to see clearly who is responsible for the data, who wrote the paper, and who gave it the final stamp of approval, they might think twice before accepting the data as the result of objective science. In fact, we might see a movement to put research and publishing back in the hands of academic research centers.
The issue is not ghostwriting; it's ghost management. As long as there is an unidentified entity behind the scenes (usually the pharma sponsor) directing the study and approving the content of the paper, everyone involved is just an actor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way to fix this is to do away with "authorship" entirely and list each entity and person according to their contribution, as they do in films. The director would be the pharma sponsor; the people currently listed as "authors" would be medical consultants (which is what they are), the publication company and medical writer would be indentified as such, and so on.
Of course this would pull the curtain from the Wizard of Oz show currently known as medical research and publishing. But that's the point. If the medical profession were able to see clearly who is responsible for the data, who wrote the paper, and who gave it the final stamp of approval, they might think twice before accepting the data as the result of objective science. In fact, we might see a movement to put research and publishing back in the hands of academic research centers.