AMWA Response to JAMA Articles About Medical Writers in Vioxx Case

Sue Hudson, AMWA's president, kindly agreed to share the message below with the readers of this blog (it was originally an email sent to AMWA members):

As many of you have been discussing, the articles in this week’s JAMA about alleged misuse of medical writing resources by Merck in publications about Vioxx garnered a lot of press coverage. As is often the case, the JAMA articles and the associated press coverage tend to blur the distinction between “guest authorship” (putting an author’s name on an article he/she did not help to write) and the unacknowledged use of medical writers (ghostwriting, a term AMWA tries to avoid). A number of people have asked whether AMWA should do something.

Several of us saw this as an opportunity to assert AMWA’s leadership in promoting ethical practices in medical writing. Accordingly, we have submitted letters to the editors of the NY Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Chronicle of Higher Education, all of which carried stories about the JAMA articles. All letters are signed by me as AMWA president.

Key points in all the letters include:

§ While ghostwriting (the undisclosed contribution of a medical writer) is unethical in scientific publications, the use of professional medical writers may be appropriate and ethical.

§ Using their skills in communicating complex data, professional writers help researchers report their findings effectively, making contributions comparable to those of professional statisticians who analyze data or artists who create illustrations.

§ The 5500-member American Medical Writers Association promotes ethical practices in scientific publication, including acknowledgment of medical writers’ roles, adherence to applicable guidelines (eg, authorship rules of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), and full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, including financial support.

§ Transparent disclosure of the roles of all contributors avoids ghostwriting and allows readers to evaluate the credibility of research reports.

Thanks for reading!