ience is objective because of its procedures. According to this view, the foundation of scientific objectivity rests in the way scientists communicate and contest results. Helen Longino (2001) argues that scientific communities are objective insofar as their communication procedures are open and contestable. But ghostwritten papers conceal the interests of authors and sponsors in a way that makes it difficult to assess and contest the scientific data, which undermines the objectivity of science itself.
Ghost-writing appears to be yet another of the common practices in the contemporary health care arena that ought to create outrage, but have attracted little notice, yet another example of the anechoic effect.
Honest medical scientists ought to be outraged that their field has been contaminated by ghost-written articles meant to sell products. Physicians ought to be even more outraged that the clinical data on which they ought to be basing decisions for individual patients has been likewise contaminated.
WHAT IS TO BE DONE? - Moffatt and Elliott do make some recommendations:
First, universities need to treat the practice of signing on to ghostwritten journal articles as a case of academic misconduct. They need to institute rules to prevent faculty members from lending their names to papers they did not write, and when they discover cases where faculty members have engaged in the practice, they need to have mechanisms in place to sanction them.
Second, lawyers should start naming ghostwriters and sham authors as defendants in litigation against the pharmaceutical industry. As things stand now, only pharmaceutical companies are financially punished for fraud, and since their pockets are so deep, the threat of litigation is not sufficient to deter them from commissioning ghosted articles. But the threat of litigation would probably deter those with more limited financial resources. Litigation could serve as a dramatic way of making ghostwriters, sham authors, and medical communications companies directly culpable for the harm caused by their fraudulent activity.
Third, there needs to be a standing committee, task force, or office with an established institutional home whose job is to gather information about potential cases of ghostwriting, to sanction authors who have been determined to participate in ghostwriting, and to disseminate information about ghostwritten papers to the public. One major difficulty in identifying ghostwritten articles is the fact that journal editors are often reluctant to identify suspected or known ghostwriters publicly. A committee to counter ghostwriting could be housed in a professional body or in a governmental institution, such as the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Alternatively, it could be hosted in a university or a watchdog organization.
Finally, there needs to be an effective strategy for identifying and discouraging ghostwriting. To achieve this end, we propose an amnesty program where people who report their own involvement in the production of ghostwritten journal articles are offered immunity from sanction in exchange for a detailed description of their involvement. People involved with the production of ghostwritten articles but who have not reported their involvement, on the other hand, would, if discovered, receive sanctions. In the case of academic sham authors, for example, such sanctions might include restrictions on receiving federal funds for research and the forwarding of the academic misconduct case to the university of the researcher in question. The benefit of the amnesty approach is that it would offer incentives for authors to come forward and would identify previously ghostwritten papers, while also discouraging the production of ghostwritten papers in the future.
I would urge practicing physicians and physician-scientists to support these recommendations.
Otherwise, the continued production of ghost-written pseudoevidence will continue to undermine science and delude practitioners.