_
Do Rehovot's Weizmann Institute Scientists Work for Tobacco Industry?
"As editor and publisher of based in Israel independent, non-profit, non-governmental International scholarly journals Neurobiology of Lipids and Doping Journal, I would like to add to the discussion of Jerusalem Posts' Judy Siegel-Itzkovich publications (of 12/12, 14/12 and 16 December 2005) on the support of tobacco research by Hebrew University and Weizmann Institute from a major tobacco manufacturer.
Clearly, Molecular Psychiatry publication by Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Kerem and the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot adds to the pro-tobacco propaganda and harms global anti-tobacco message.
Many readers could notice the study abstract statement that "Despite the health hazards, cigarette smoking is disproportionately frequent among young women" and that "a significant contribution of genetic factors to smoking phenotypes is well established..."
Only those with a subscription to Molecular Psychiatry (or those who paid 30 US$ for the view of this article full text) could further notice (in the article Acknowledgement section) that "Research described in this article was supported in part by Philip Morris USA Inc. and Philip Morris International (investigator designed, independently reviewed grant)..."
I have little doubt that despite the article statement (that Philip Morris grant support was investigator designed and independently reviewed), tobacco giant had many ways to direct the desired study and manipulate the publication.
First, the grant proposal by Hadassa Medical Center's Dr. Lerer in order to be funded, apparently had to be "independently" favorable reviewed by Philip Morris Grant Committee. Would one think this committee could approve scientific project that could threaten Philip Morris business?
Second, it is well possible, that while Lerer's tobacco project is "investigator designed", the Molecular Psychiatry publication is smart designed by Philip Morris. Grant terms that Lerer and associated Institutions had to accept for a project funding could well include the condition of Philip Morris screening a resulting manuscript prior to its' submission for publication in science journal, and the right to suppress the publication of undesirable data.
"We editors of medical journals worry that we sometimes publish studies where the declared authors have not participated in the design of the study, had no access to the raw data, and had little to do with the interpretation of the data. Instead the sponsors of the study often pharmaceutical companies have designed the study and analysed and interpreted the data. Readers and editors are thus being deceived. Editors are also concerned that the declared authors might not have ultimate control over whether their studies are published. That decision may rest with the funders of the research perhaps a government department or a pharmaceutical company which could mean that results unfavourable to the funders are suppressed. This distorts the scientific record and again deceives readers, allowing them to read only favourable results. Editors have taken steps to counter the problem by revising the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and changing editorial practices."
"Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of JAMA, has told the now famous story of how Boots went to great lengths to try to suppress a study that showed that its product levothyroxine was not superior to its competitors' products. The authors came from the University of California, San Francisco, which insists, wisely, that its academics keep control of publication of their papers. Unfortunately in this case the authors did not. The head of the sponsored research office of Massachusetts General Hospital estimates that about 30-50% of contracts submitted by companies have unacceptable clauses on publication that must be renegotiated. A survey of over 3300 members of life science faculties in 50 universities found that a fifth had had publication of study results delayed by more than six months at least once in the past three years. One reason for this delay was to slow the dissemination of undesired results. Certainly there seems to be a proliferation of stories of companies suppressing publication, despite forceful arguments that failure to publish amounts to research misconduct."
Citation source: Richard Smith. Editorials: Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Editors make a move. British Medical Journal (BMJ) 323: 588 (15 September 2001) [FullText]
Look at a second sentence of the abstract, the only article text available to the public for free: "A significant contribution of genetic factors to smoking phenotypes is well established." Is this the major message Philip Morris wanted to broadcast by the publication of Israeli scientists? Is this the statement self censored authors included in the abstract to please the funder, long interested in the genetics of smoking (San Francisco Chronicle, 27 December 2005). Hidden to the public view (by 30$ access barrier) the article acknowledgement section reads that "Research described in this article was supported in part by Philip Morris USA Inc. and Philip Morris International (investigator designed, independently reviewed grant), the Genome Infrastructure Program of the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology and the Crown Human Genome Center at the Weizmann Institute of Science..." Smart statement, isn't it? Does it mean major tobacco manufacturer, Israel Governmental Ministry of Science and Technology, and The Weizmann Institute of Science work hand in hand to provide support for certain parts of the reported tobacco project? Is this collaboration mutually beneficial and rewarding? Could it be not rewarding for a commercial entity?
The first look at Bernard Lerer's (the senior author) contribution at PubMed, the major database for biomedical publications by the US National Library of Medicine, suggests he is a successful scientist-administrator, directing research on a broad spectrum of projects. He also serves as editor of the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. His fellow workers (graduate students? postdoctoral fellows?), apparently think this Molecular Psychiatry publication is very important for their future academic development (read "for professor appointment and tenure-track university promotion"). Such "future career at stake message" is implied by fellow co-authors inability to decide who is the first author of the publication, and the article footnote that "these authors contributed equally to this work".
Obviously, fellow authors did not have a chance to think of the ethics behind their publication support by tobacco industry. Is this a major issue to bring to the agenda of Israel Medical association meeting, reported by Jerusalem Post to held this week and discuss the Tobacco Industry support of Medical research in Israel? Could it be different in an institutional settings, having closed-to-public-view corrupted practices of research funds management? At the Weizmann Institute, for example, top scientist could be listed as other scientist grant co-participant without knowing about it. Was this a practice exercised by present Institutes' Academic secretary at a time of his Institutional "Grants and Projects" office head post? He could also prohibit ones' applying for a promising grant project after a telephone call by at-that-time Vice President of the Institute, a member of Genetics Department, now involved in tobacco industry support scandal. This was reported by Rehovot community journal half-a-year ago (MyRehovot.info/ru of June 4 and May 25). Could it be different when the President of the Institute and the Dean of the Graduate School both serve for bio tech companies, without reporting their commercial ties to their peers and students? No wonder institutional scientists keep silence, as talks on such "transparency" and policies could easy lead them to the street out of "prestigious" learned institution. Given corrupted tentacles (when alarmed, an inability or unwillingness to investigate administration wrongdoing by Institutional science bodies well fit the code of silence) and the fact there are just few Universities in Israel, the talks on Institutional corruption by insiders may be useless and lead to a lifetime domestic academic unemployment. The financial offences associated with research grant management by Hebrew University and The Weizmann Institute were reported in the Comptroller's Report "Account Management Seriously Flawed" (25 Aug 2004, available here).
Nature Publishing Group, the publisher of Molecular Psychiatry, apparently, is not innocent either. Nature has a proven record of brazen lie and inability to combat commercial interest in scientific publication. It is detailed in a written evidence "Editorial and Publisher corruption", published proceedings (by United Kingdom Parliamentary publishing house) of Science and Technology Committee inquiry on scientific publication (pp. 394-404, Ev386, Science and Technology - Tenth Report, Volume II, Oral and Written Evidence, House of Commons Publication HC399II 20 July 2004) . Aside from the authors' responsibility to follow the "Universal Requirement for Manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals" (that Prof. Lerer also have to observe as a journal Editor-in-Chief), the requirements' latest revisions (BMJ 323: 588, 2001), and Nature thoughts on the issue, more transparent statement on the tobacco Industry support of the Molecular Psychiatry article by Greenbaum et al. seems a must, especially, because Philip Morris web site does not make funded research grants information easy available. If no transparency, why we should believe Philip Morris grants are "investigator designed" and "independently reviewed".
It would be too simplistic to narrow the Molecular Psychiatry publication with an individual Israel scientist sympathy to commercially supported big bucks bargain science projects. At stake is the damage of ethics of the entire Israeli biomedical science, caused by the wrongdoing of irresponsible university R&D science officials, missed students ethics education and ethics culture, and the lack of Israel science openness."
Source: A.Koudinov. Will tobacco industry sponsored study by Hebrew U. and the Weizmann Institute increase tobacco sales and down anti-tobacco activism? www.IsraelScholar.org (18 December 2005) [FullText]
Clearly, Molecular Psychiatry publication by Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem's Ein Kerem and the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot adds to the pro-tobacco propaganda and harms global anti-tobacco message.
Many readers could notice the study abstract statement that "Despite the health hazards, cigarette smoking is disproportionately frequent among young women" and that "a significant contribution of genetic factors to smoking phenotypes is well established..."
Only those with a subscription to Molecular Psychiatry (or those who paid 30 US$ for the view of this article full text) could further notice (in the article Acknowledgement section) that "Research described in this article was supported in part by Philip Morris USA Inc. and Philip Morris International (investigator designed, independently reviewed grant)..."
I have little doubt that despite the article statement (that Philip Morris grant support was investigator designed and independently reviewed), tobacco giant had many ways to direct the desired study and manipulate the publication.
First, the grant proposal by Hadassa Medical Center's Dr. Lerer in order to be funded, apparently had to be "independently" favorable reviewed by Philip Morris Grant Committee. Would one think this committee could approve scientific project that could threaten Philip Morris business?
Second, it is well possible, that while Lerer's tobacco project is "investigator designed", the Molecular Psychiatry publication is smart designed by Philip Morris. Grant terms that Lerer and associated Institutions had to accept for a project funding could well include the condition of Philip Morris screening a resulting manuscript prior to its' submission for publication in science journal, and the right to suppress the publication of undesirable data.
"We editors of medical journals worry that we sometimes publish studies where the declared authors have not participated in the design of the study, had no access to the raw data, and had little to do with the interpretation of the data. Instead the sponsors of the study often pharmaceutical companies have designed the study and analysed and interpreted the data. Readers and editors are thus being deceived. Editors are also concerned that the declared authors might not have ultimate control over whether their studies are published. That decision may rest with the funders of the research perhaps a government department or a pharmaceutical company which could mean that results unfavourable to the funders are suppressed. This distorts the scientific record and again deceives readers, allowing them to read only favourable results. Editors have taken steps to counter the problem by revising the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and changing editorial practices."
"Drummond Rennie, a deputy editor of JAMA, has told the now famous story of how Boots went to great lengths to try to suppress a study that showed that its product levothyroxine was not superior to its competitors' products. The authors came from the University of California, San Francisco, which insists, wisely, that its academics keep control of publication of their papers. Unfortunately in this case the authors did not. The head of the sponsored research office of Massachusetts General Hospital estimates that about 30-50% of contracts submitted by companies have unacceptable clauses on publication that must be renegotiated. A survey of over 3300 members of life science faculties in 50 universities found that a fifth had had publication of study results delayed by more than six months at least once in the past three years. One reason for this delay was to slow the dissemination of undesired results. Certainly there seems to be a proliferation of stories of companies suppressing publication, despite forceful arguments that failure to publish amounts to research misconduct."
Citation source: Richard Smith. Editorials: Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Editors make a move. British Medical Journal (BMJ) 323: 588 (15 September 2001) [FullText]
Look at a second sentence of the abstract, the only article text available to the public for free: "A significant contribution of genetic factors to smoking phenotypes is well established." Is this the major message Philip Morris wanted to broadcast by the publication of Israeli scientists? Is this the statement self censored authors included in the abstract to please the funder, long interested in the genetics of smoking (San Francisco Chronicle, 27 December 2005). Hidden to the public view (by 30$ access barrier) the article acknowledgement section reads that "Research described in this article was supported in part by Philip Morris USA Inc. and Philip Morris International (investigator designed, independently reviewed grant), the Genome Infrastructure Program of the Israeli Ministry of Science and Technology and the Crown Human Genome Center at the Weizmann Institute of Science..." Smart statement, isn't it? Does it mean major tobacco manufacturer, Israel Governmental Ministry of Science and Technology, and The Weizmann Institute of Science work hand in hand to provide support for certain parts of the reported tobacco project? Is this collaboration mutually beneficial and rewarding? Could it be not rewarding for a commercial entity?
The first look at Bernard Lerer's (the senior author) contribution at PubMed, the major database for biomedical publications by the US National Library of Medicine, suggests he is a successful scientist-administrator, directing research on a broad spectrum of projects. He also serves as editor of the International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. His fellow workers (graduate students? postdoctoral fellows?), apparently think this Molecular Psychiatry publication is very important for their future academic development (read "for professor appointment and tenure-track university promotion"). Such "future career at stake message" is implied by fellow co-authors inability to decide who is the first author of the publication, and the article footnote that "these authors contributed equally to this work".
Obviously, fellow authors did not have a chance to think of the ethics behind their publication support by tobacco industry. Is this a major issue to bring to the agenda of Israel Medical association meeting, reported by Jerusalem Post to held this week and discuss the Tobacco Industry support of Medical research in Israel? Could it be different in an institutional settings, having closed-to-public-view corrupted practices of research funds management? At the Weizmann Institute, for example, top scientist could be listed as other scientist grant co-participant without knowing about it. Was this a practice exercised by present Institutes' Academic secretary at a time of his Institutional "Grants and Projects" office head post? He could also prohibit ones' applying for a promising grant project after a telephone call by at-that-time Vice President of the Institute, a member of Genetics Department, now involved in tobacco industry support scandal. This was reported by Rehovot community journal half-a-year ago (MyRehovot.info/ru of June 4 and May 25). Could it be different when the President of the Institute and the Dean of the Graduate School both serve for bio tech companies, without reporting their commercial ties to their peers and students? No wonder institutional scientists keep silence, as talks on such "transparency" and policies could easy lead them to the street out of "prestigious" learned institution. Given corrupted tentacles (when alarmed, an inability or unwillingness to investigate administration wrongdoing by Institutional science bodies well fit the code of silence) and the fact there are just few Universities in Israel, the talks on Institutional corruption by insiders may be useless and lead to a lifetime domestic academic unemployment. The financial offences associated with research grant management by Hebrew University and The Weizmann Institute were reported in the Comptroller's Report "Account Management Seriously Flawed" (25 Aug 2004, available here).
Nature Publishing Group, the publisher of Molecular Psychiatry, apparently, is not innocent either. Nature has a proven record of brazen lie and inability to combat commercial interest in scientific publication. It is detailed in a written evidence "Editorial and Publisher corruption", published proceedings (by United Kingdom Parliamentary publishing house) of Science and Technology Committee inquiry on scientific publication (pp. 394-404, Ev386, Science and Technology - Tenth Report, Volume II, Oral and Written Evidence, House of Commons Publication HC399II 20 July 2004) . Aside from the authors' responsibility to follow the "Universal Requirement for Manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals" (that Prof. Lerer also have to observe as a journal Editor-in-Chief), the requirements' latest revisions (BMJ 323: 588, 2001), and Nature thoughts on the issue, more transparent statement on the tobacco Industry support of the Molecular Psychiatry article by Greenbaum et al. seems a must, especially, because Philip Morris web site does not make funded research grants information easy available. If no transparency, why we should believe Philip Morris grants are "investigator designed" and "independently reviewed".
It would be too simplistic to narrow the Molecular Psychiatry publication with an individual Israel scientist sympathy to commercially supported big bucks bargain science projects. At stake is the damage of ethics of the entire Israeli biomedical science, caused by the wrongdoing of irresponsible university R&D science officials, missed students ethics education and ethics culture, and the lack of Israel science openness."
Source: A.Koudinov. Will tobacco industry sponsored study by Hebrew U. and the Weizmann Institute increase tobacco sales and down anti-tobacco activism? www.IsraelScholar.org (18 December 2005) [FullText]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home