Concern for bias deepens -- but fails to widen
In previous posts, I've noted that concern for investigator bias is a serious threat to the integrity of medical research -- and public confidence in the results. It's getting to the point of "piling on" for the Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association to add their strong voices to the crescendo of the chorus.
But it's a lot like the future funding for Social Security: everyone recognizes a serious problem, but sometimes the remedies suggested are half-measures that will surely only paper-over the fundamental problem.
Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal ran a story "Simply Disclosing Funds Behind Studies May Not Erase Bias " about how researchers would likely deal with toughened disclosures of financial ties to for-profit firms. Tuesday, Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor-in-chief weighed in with a powerful salvo in "The Influence of Money on Medical Science ." Of course they're both right. Bias is a cardinal sin and must be stamped out.
Unfortunately, the remedies being discussed are focused narrowly on bias from a for-profit funding source. They ignore the bias based on funding from a non-profit or government source, though that influence can be even more pernicious because the public is gulled into believing the sponsors genuinely represent the "public interest." The truth is, there are policy and bureaucratic biases fully as important as taking money from a drug company or medical device manufacturer.
Sure, let's deepen our concern -- but let's widen it as well!
