Better Disclosure Needed for Study Authors Making Big Bucks

Some surgeons making more than $1 million in consulting fees did not disclose that fact in journal articles related to devices on which they consulted. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

We expect scientists and doctors to be upfront about whether papers they publish may line their purses. But according to a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine [Susan Chimonas, Zachary Frosch and David Rothman, http://bit.ly/d7YVfE], nearly half of surgeons who made at least a million dollars from orthopedic device companies did not reveal that fact in their publications.

The study authors searched a public database in which five manufacturing companies disclosed the amounts they paid consultants. The companies shelled out almost $250 million in 2007 for consulting, about 62 percent of which went to only 41 orthopedic surgeons. Each made more than a million dollars.

In 95 articles co-authored by these surgeons—most of which covered a device made by one of the five companies—fewer than half the articles had any financial disclosure. And none reported the size of the payments.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The report’s authors say that most journals go by the honor system. Journal editors expect physicians to disclose financial conflicts, and they don’t check. But now 15 drug and device companies put payments on their Web sites, and all are required to by 2013. The study authors say journals need to peruse these records so the public knows about any potential conflicts of interest.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe