> > Can you address the issue of > vested interests? If a drug > > company has > > financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your > > argument is that > > we should nevertheless reply on those studies > exclusively, > > and not > > allow high-quality mainstream media who may be > pointing to > > problems > > before anyone else does. > > The problem is that this isn't my argument, Sarah. I have > consistently backed > you up in saying that if there is a debate in the > mainstream media, we owe it > our readers to tell them about it. > > Andreas
I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 criticises media reports for citing studies and experts with financial ties to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties to the reader. If it's improper for the media to withhold this information, it's equally improper for us to withhold it in our articles. It's a question of correct attribution: "According to a 2007 randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled trial funded by company X, involving 50 patients, their product Y ..." I don't think our medical sources guideline addresses this point at present, i.e. that we should name funding sources in our attribution. So that is an area we could do some work on. At least it will be clear to the reader who paid for what. A. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
