Should Doctors Who Put Their Names On Ghostwritten 'Journal' Articles For Big Pharma Be Sued For Fraud?
from the and-don't-forget-racketeering dept
A few years back, we wrote about one of the (many) nasty and nefarious practices of the pharma industry: ghostwriting scientific "review" articles that pretended to give an overview of research on a certain treatment, but which really promoted a specific treatment, while de-emphasizing the risks. These ghostwritten works were then made to look legitimate by getting a real doctor or academic to put their name on it, and then getting it published, sometimes in somewhat prestigious journals. Back in 2009, there was some movement on this story, as some Senators began investigating this practice... but not much came of it.However, now, there's a fascinating article over at PLoS, arguing that guest authors who put their names on such ghostwritten papers should be charged with fraud under the RICO Act. The article argues that mere academic sanctions and/or banning such authors from publishing again in certain journals may not be enough. Instead, it suggests that a credible claim can be made in some cases on a RICO class action:
Because a journal�s readers are all harmed by the fraud, they may sue the guest in a civil RICO class action. One of their harms involves the value of the journal subscription. The subscription price represents the value of a year�s worth of articles that conform to the guidelines. Readers would not willingly pay for the fraudulent articles, as shown by the hypothetical example of a guest author who disclaims responsibility for authorship. Whether or not they read the article in question, its publication deprives them of the opportunity to read an article satisfying the journal�s requirements, and thus diminishes the value of their subscription. The harm may be measured by reducing the subscription price in proportion to the space devoted to the ghostwritten article. If the subscription costs $100, and the journal publishes 100 articles per year, it could be said that each subscriber suffers a $1 loss from a fraudulent article. The individual loss is small, but the aggregate loss to all subscribers may be significant�particularly if the cost is trebled under RICO.While I find the whole practice of bogus pharma marketing of this nature to be ridiculous, I'm still not sure I see a strong RICO claim here. My guess is that a lot of courts would throw this kind of claim out pretty quickly. I agree that something should be done to stop ghostwritten articles, but I'm not convinced that potentially charging them under the RICO Act is going to be the most effective.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fraud, ghost writing, journals, medical journals, pharmaceuticals, rico
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Plaster the name, face, occupation, work address all over repeatedly for five years so nobody forgets him for at least 10 years that should be punishment enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Research Assessment
The current UK research assessment process is coming down on this practice, demanding evidence of authorship for papers submitted. I would have thought that the journals themselves will be forced to do the same soon - probably the best way to stamp it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You downgrade fraud to "ridiculous" at the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You downgrade fraud to "ridiculous" at the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You downgrade fraud to "ridiculous" at the end.
Can be a tough concept to grasp, I understand, especially if you're used to Fox News or the like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a word:
...
Hell, lately I've been pondering the possibility of drafting legislation to make opinion statements and logical fallacies a crime for politicians, lawyers & judges... this topic kinda falls right in line with that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctor should lose license
One sanction that would work for a doctor is to lose their license.
Overall for doctors or academics, the best remedy is if there would be some mechanism to make it widely known that this person has put their name on a fraudulent article. If they put their name on it, they should be responsible for what it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disagree.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't stop corporations from ghostwriting articles, but it will make it a lot more obvious when it happens. It will also make such ghostwriting less effective as people treat it like the advertising it really is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure seems to fit a RICO case to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is the 'high impact'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, I suppose that is the new trend. Corporate entities are more important then living entities, and they don't have to worry about physical or mental health. So those things can safely be removed from the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me it should be treated exactly as if the doctors/whatever themselves wrote the article. That is, if it's found to be fraudulent, then they get to answer for it in court.
But I don't think that the very act of signing someone else' work should be illegal. It should however be a breach of contract with the publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Pharma
In other words, even though I know this is just an off-the-top-of-the-head comment, it does not make you look very good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]