Experts with financial ties to industry could be banned from writing editorials and reviews, under a controversial proposal being floated by the BMJ.
The move, which would represent a dramatic hardening of the journal’s stance on conflicts of interest, has been proposed in response to US regulators considering steps in the opposite direction.
The US Food and Drug Administration hinted it might loosen its restrictions on industry-linked advisors, saying independent experts were in such short supply that relying solely on them was a hindrance.
However, BMJ editor Dr Fiona Godlee was scathing in an editorial, saying: “Now is not the time for cold feet. If anything, it’s time to push even harder.”
“Backtracking now on conflicts of interest would send the wrong message, especially to the European Medicines Agency, which has some catching up to do,” she said.
She noted that industry’s influence over regulatory decision was “well documented” and urged the FDA to “stand firm” in its position.
Currently, no more than 13% of FDA advisors can have industry ties, but the agency suggested this rule was delaying approvals.
Dr Godlee’s proposal has drawn a wide range of responses on the journal’s website.
Supporters argued the journal’s current policy of requiring authors to declare their conflicts of interest failed to “sanitise the content”, and tougher restrictions were needed to eliminate bias.
However, others argued a ban would freeze out key opinion leaders, and bias authorship towards experts who were less knowledgeable and had less experience of new drugs.
One respondent, a gastroenterologist from Manchester, UK, said collaborating with industry was essential for innovative and important research.
“Funding is comparatively plentiful for the more ‘sexy’ areas of research, but please spare a thought for those of us in Cinderella specialties,” he said.
BMJ 2011; 343:d5147.