Journal publishers say no to banning pharma ads

As one might expect they would. This article in PLoS Medicine ends with this conclusion:

    The primary obligation of industry is to make money for its stockholders. The primary obligation of journals should be to physicians and their patients, who depend on the accuracy of information within these publications. Medical journals should not accept advertisements from pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, or other industries “relevant to medicine.”

Not surprisingly, journal publishers are not too keen on this idea. In this article:

    John Kamp, executive director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, called the study‘s proposed ban on advertising a “goofy” idea, stating the study‘s authors should instead thank drug companies for supporting robust medical journal independence.

    “PLoS Medicine needs to take a basic course in the First Amendment and the history of American journalism,” he said. “Journals advance the science of medicine and play a critical role in the diffusion of innovation in clinical treatment, mostly at the expense of the drug industry. What the drug industry gets in the bargain is access to prescribers and the opportunity to be kicked around routinely by fiercely independent journal editors. For all its perceived faults, it's a great system that benefits doctors and their patients.”

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.