It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Law professors: Academics 'guest authoring' ghostwritten studies should be charged with fraud

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Law professors: Academics 'guest authoring' ghostwritten studies should be charged with fraud


www.rawstory.co m

Academics who lend their names to medical and scientific articles ghostwritten by the pharmaceutical industry should be charged with fraud under the the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to two University of Toronto Faculty of Law professors.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I believe one of the law professors is on the mark when he states that he practice is essentially prostitution of academic integrity.


In an article published Tuesday in PLoS Medicine, Professors Simon Stern and Trudo Lemmens argued that, "guest author's claim for credit of an article written by someone else constitutes legal fraud, and may give rise to claims that could be pursued in a class action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act."

"Guest authorship is a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability," they claimed. "Pharmaceutical sponsors borrow the names of academic experts precisely because of the value and prestige attached to the presumed integrity and independence of academic researchers."


But somehow, the prospect of Big Pharma... one of the most politically and economically powerful enterprises in the world, being prosecuted for an "organized crime" charge is far too good to be true.

In the end, medical institutional ethics should have made the practice so ugly and repugnant that no doctor would sully his or her name by participating.... instead it was accepted as a 'rightful' practice....

What say you ATS?

www.rawstory.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Could not agree more.

I think within the last 30 or so years it has become a trend of academics to say almost anything to get some form of grant or funding. Corporations have inserted themselves into our politics and our educational institutions, by doing this they can quite easily subvert the free thinking populace with money.

This articles accusations remind me of the tobacco companies blatant bribery of doctors and medical officials throughout the early and mid 20th century. Basically paying them to say that cigarettes were good for you and caused no harm.

But just like in that case, our judicial system will fail to actually do anything in response to corporate fascism.

Academics seem to have sold their souls.
edit on 9-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Sadly, I think the same characterization may also be applied to the upper echelons of economics. Somehow, these highly educated masters also contribute significantly to perception which people accept simply because those speaking are 'economists.'

Medical experts nowadays are burdened with astronomical debt once they leave the educational diploma mills. I suspect the same can be said of more than one 'scientific' field. Of course, few are willing to explore the idea fully, since their own pronouncement may be questioned in light of the benefits they receive for saying "the right (politically or financially expedient) thing."

.... politically or financially..... is there a difference?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Sounds like plagiarism to me. It is one thing to say that some professor has reviewed the report and has not found a fault with it, it is quite another to say they compiled the report when they did not. It is fraud. The corporation and professor both know better and should both be held liable other wise you may as well just stamp Anonymous on every scientific report as reputation means nothing.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Oh no doubt. I think it can be applied to any field of academia. The advice of educated professionals is paramount to the populace, which it should be. However many fields have become very dogmatic, it seems to me that if you dont prescribe to an overwhelmingly popular theory amongst your respected study, you are shunned. There seems to be little room for improvement due to the overwhelming ego that the academic community has succumbed to, as a result of (like many others) greed.

The debt accumulated by going to school does play a big factor IMO. It makes scientists and doctors more hesitant to push boundaries and question popular assumptions with new data, out of fear of losing their lively hood.

It is corruption. That is what we get for having an elitist/capitalist system of education, which caters to the rich and influential and leaves the masses ignorant.

We cannot have an honest educated community, without honest educated professionals to look up to.
edit on 9-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 




We cannot have an honest educated community, without honest educated professionals to look up to.


The problem is that the military, finance and government all hold it all over academia. Some that do try and promote the truth are treated as terrorists as they shot the messenger and are too deluded to see the message. It is a complicated world and unless we can be honest about it the problems will just continue to grow, get bigger and nastier. Money does make me sad at times with how it has become all about power and ego rather than reason and need. I don't want to die rich when I see what it does to people.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 



The problem is that the military, finance and government all hold it all over academia.


This is true.

But that is another problem, the institutions you mention above are lacking in educated academics. The few who are actually educated are either ignored or corrupted by greed. The military/government has a strangle hold on research and development, they take smart people and have them build weapons instead of something that can help the human race. We (as in the people) are lucky to get a piece of useful technology kicked down to us by military. Just think about the stuff they have now


I think the financial academics are in the worst position. Due to evolving markets and an over all evolving world they have been hard pressed to come up with solutions.

This is because...*drum roll*...our economic polices are outdated and flawed. Economics is like physics, its very hard to understand. Even for economists! I love listening to these guys talk about the economy. They either all follow the same seemingly scripted position, or they have a position that is contradicted 5 minutes later by another economists position, which in turn is contradicted by 6 or 7 other people who all have their own positions. No one understands it because its made to be misunderstood.

If economic academics actually sat down and discussed what is in the interest of the humans who live on this planet, rather than do what is in the best interests of their wall street buddies or their own pocket books...we would have a better world.

Again education and cooperation is the key, and we are being stripped of both.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Yep, you have nailed it with the economics issues



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Law professors: Academics 'guest authoring' ghostwritten studies should be charged with fraud


www.rawstory.co m

Academics who lend their names to medical and scientific articles ghostwritten by the pharmaceutical industry should be charged with fraud under the the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), according to two University of Toronto Faculty of Law professors.
(visit the link for the full news article)


All I can say is "isn't this like the pot calling the kettle....." People in glass houses and all that, except they bury their crap pretty good, but there are always loose ends, errr, cough.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
If economic academics actually sat down and discussed what is in the interest of the humans who live on this planet, rather than do what is in the best interests of their wall street buddies or their own pocket books...we would have a better world.

Again education and cooperation is the key, and we are being stripped of both.


You mean socialization and uniform cooperation is the key. If these studies, as it suggests, were consensually agreed to between private individuals, then there is nothing anyone can do about it except you educate yourself to discern between the true and the false and not have to rely on the opinion of experts/authorities who are easily corruptible. You don't go after people who wish to put food on their table. You may hold it to be unethical, and maybe it is, but it should not be illegal and legislation is not for deciding moral questions.

So, in short, it's the personal responsibility of each individual to cultivate himself; it's not the responsibility of authority/expert figures to do it for you and to have to rely on them to do so you are just begging to be disappointed.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 



You mean socialization and uniform cooperation is the key.


This has nothing to do with socialism.

The term you use "uniform cooperation" is bait, and for the sake of argument and sheer boredom at work I will bite


Uniform implies all as one. A uniform society does not exist, never has never will it is impossible to make people agree with you forever even by the barrel of a gun (Mao found that one out).

Cooperation is different, it means people working together. They may have different points of view, different solutions but they have a common goal. This is where democracy takes place.


If these studies, as it suggests, were consensually agreed to between private individuals,then there is nothing anyone can do about it except you educate yourself to discern between the true and the false and not have to rely on the opinion of experts/authorities who are easily corruptible.


But that's just the thing.


Academics who lend their names to ghostwritten studies give false respectability to claims of safety and effectiveness that threaten to undermine the integrity of medical research and patient care, according to Stern and Lemmens. This false respectability extends to the courtroom as well, when the studies are used as evidence in lawsuits to support pharmaceutical companies' claims.



"This is not a random occurrence, but rather a repeating, planned scenario in which drugs, discovered with good science for a specific set of patients, are marketed to a larger population as necessary, beneficial and safer than other alternatives," Howard Brody, a professor and director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities at UTMB Health and co-author of the study, said.


They are lying...and getting away with it.

Where do we get scientific data? Where do we get medical information? From experts...right? So you are saying that we cannot trust experts and must educate ourselves in the manner physicists, doctors, and economists do? You do realize this is an impossibility for most people on the planet. While many can grasp concepts and theories only a small percentage has the capability of being on par with university educated academics. This has little to do with intelligence, the reasons behind it are varied.


You don't go after people who wish to put food on their table.You may hold it to be unethical, and maybe it is, but it should not be illegal and legislation is not for deciding moral questions.


If they are putting that food on the table through subversion and the blood of patients that your drugs did not work on, then yes that is criminal and can be "gone after". The doctors are just as guilty for doing little to no research on the documents which they put their names on.


So, in short, it's the personal responsibility of each individual to cultivate himself


I agree its up to people to expand their own knowledge. But people can be deceived by those with expertise, through in which all knowledge stems from...

Oh I'm sorry I forgot knowledge comes from the talking tube box in peoples living rooms now, not by people who can actually think.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye


Cooperation is different, it means people working together. They may have different points of view, different solutions but they have a common goal. This is where democracy takes place.


Different solutions implies different economical directives and thus the democracy taking place ends up being defined as an individual making choices according to his own values. Publications and studies formed by these companies, with the consent of the parties involved, is an economical choice, which is private, not public. When you have a personal, economical investment in the process i.e. your tax money being used, it very much is your business. Politics is democratic, economics is not.


They are lying...and getting away with it.


Then research.


Where do we get scientific data? Where do we get medical information? From experts...right? So you are saying that we cannot trust experts and must educate ourselves in the manner physicists, doctors, and economists do? You do realize this is an impossibility for most people on the planet. While many can grasp concepts and theories only a small percentage has the capability of being on par with university educated academics. This has little to do with intelligence, the reasons behind it are varied.


It's not impossible-- again, making choices requires a set of values, and these choices require trade-offs; each producing their own consequences but ultimately your choices are upto you and your individual experiences. If you're more intelligent/learned, you make better choices, which provides the incentive to be intelligent/learned. So, no, that's not true that you get information from experts-- you assume their experience based on authority and hope it applies to your immediate conditions. That is expedient thinking, not critical thinking.

As Richard Feynman said, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

That is real science. What you describe is cargo cult science.


If they are putting that food on the table through subversion and the blood of patients that your drugs did not work on. . .



But people can be deceived by those with expertise, through in which all knowledge stems from...


Unfortunate, but again, it's your duty as an individual to research and make choices. If x is marketed as doing z and doesn't do z, you can't just go after them-- they didn't put a gun to your head and require you to purchase their product. That's the difference.

Economical? Yes (but if your product doesn't work, word will get around and your demand will fall and if there's no demand, there's no supply and if there's no supply there's no profit; no profit = no business). Immoral? I certainly think so, but again, I have no standing/personal investment in their business.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by imherejusttoread
 



It's not impossible-- again, making choices requires a set of values, and these choices require trade-offs; each producing their own consequences but ultimately your choices are upto you and your individual experiences. If you're more intelligent/learned, you make better choices, which provides the incentive to be intelligent/learned. So, no, that's not true that you get information from experts-- you assume their experience based on authority and hope it applies to your immediate conditions. That is expedient thinking, not critical thinking. As Richard Feynman said, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

That is real science. What you describe is cargo cult science.


Smart man Richard Feynman, and the link was a nice read.

As I said in my previous post I agree that it is up to people to expand their own knowledge. We need an educated society.

But do you honestly think people will stop what they are doing in life and all become scientists? That they will all be able to conduct their own experiments and rely on no other source of information to decide what is and what is not?

I Just don't think so. Some people have no interest in things of the sort, so yes they rely on other people for certain forms of information. like is this drug safe to take, or is this car safe to drive. So are these people of lesser importance than those who seek scientific knowledge? Or can one be still intelligent without possessing university class knowledge?


In the link you posted I especially liked this passage...


I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.


There are many honest academics out there, and there is an equal amount of dishonest ones. Greed and power will always be the biggest motivator of corruption in all forms of study and institutions, nearly everyone has a price.

I believe that science is imperfect and can be manipulated very easily by those who understand it more than others.


Unfortunate, but again, it's your duty as an individual to research and make choices. If x is marketed as doing z and doesn't do z, you can't just go after them-- they didn't put a gun to your head and require you to purchase their product. That's the difference.


Corporate advertising and dishonest scientists/researchers do a great job of making X appear to do Z but in fact does nothing but give you side affects. Then after a bunch of out of court settlements, and hollow apologies. They create a new drug that does the same as the last, just with a new fancy name. The anti depressants and anti psychotics being created today do not work on the mass majority of people, and cause more harm then good. And Pfizer is still going strong, no law suit has stopped them, and Washington is so in bed with them that they just let the FDA push these drugs through without proper review.

I agree with many libertarian principles. But corporations should not be treated like people (I very unfortunately due to these economic times work for one), they are not even a business in my eyes. They are a political money making force. They rule through deception, they prey on the ignorant, and they are simply put to powerful.

No big government, and no big business. They are one and the same.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-8-2011 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join