on Fri, 25 Feb 2000 Jim Till <t...@oci.utoronto.ca> wrote: > My thanks to my colleague Peter Singer for his provocative article in > CMAJ, and for pointing me toward this forum. > > It's still far from clear (at least, to me!) why members of the physics > research community seem, in general, to be more comfortable with eprints > than are (as yet?) many members of the biomedical research community. >
There are many differences between bioscience and physics. The most important is is the problem of (and sensitivity to) conflict of interest. The commercial opportunities available for quack health remedies, devices, and preventions are huge. The health audience, which includes physicians and consumers, is large and naive. There is also a mass media eagerly waiting to amplify the thinnest correlation into "tips" that can attract readers and viewers. Health claims can be made on the basis of poor experimental work and unsupportable theories. Physicists, who have little to sell, often rely on mathematical proofs that make their work more reliable even if it may be less useful and interesting to the general public. Demonstrating the blindness of non-life sciences to such ethical issues, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers fought its way to the US Supreme court defending standards that had been written by Hydrolevel engineers to favor their own gizmos. The American Institute of Physics went to court to defend claims by a member of its own Governing Board that AIP publications were more cost- effective than competitors' (based solely on price- per-kiloword). The publications involved were not peer-reviewed in manner of scientific research. The editors made no effort to disclose the interest of the author in the commercial effect of the article. It was just this sort of issue that forced the resignation of Dr Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of New England Journal of Medicine. It seems the publishers, Massachusetts Medical Society wished to use the journal's name to brand other ventures. The Food and Drug Administration has opposed industry promotional reprinting and distribution of peer-reviewed articles covering off-label (such as pediatric doses) uses of pharmaceutals. It seems that drug manufacturers choose only the most favorable studies to reprint. Not long ago J A M A published a study indicating that industry-sponsored studies produced more results favorable to industry than other studies (1999;282:1453-1457 editorial 1474-1475) Clearly, an unrefereed bioscience forum presents an opportunity for self-serving propaganda aimed at peddling bogus health products. The original NIH proposal for E-Biomed to circulate unreviewed material was vigorously opposed for this reason by every editor who understands the dangers involved. Albert Henderson Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1...@compuserve.com> . . .
