No Double Standard at JAMA

We wonder why Thomas Stossel and David Shaywitz ["What's Wrong With Money in Science?" Outlook, July 2] would choose an opinion piece to air their erroneous views about an article that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association more than two months earlier, on April 26. We also wonder why Post editors would print such blatantly incorrect and potentially disparaging statements about JAMA without some basic fact-checking.

Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz's allegation that JAMA applied a double standard in the evaluation of the study on financial conflicts of interests of Food and Drug Administration advisory committee members is unfounded and unsupportable. In fact, the study underwent rigorous peer review, extensive revisions and intense editorial scrutiny before publication -- just as does every research paper we publish.

Their statement that the journal bans leading experts who have any company ties from writing editorials or commentaries in JAMA is also incorrect. An example of an editorial written by such an expert, along with full and detailed disclosure of that expert's relevant conflicts of interest, was published in the same issue as the article they incorrectly criticized.

Our policies on industry-sponsored studies are indeed "tough-minded," in that JAMA is the only general medical journal that requires an independent statistical analysis by an academician for studies in which the only statisticians who analyzed the data are employed by the company sponsoring the research. Given some of the recent high-profile episodes of research irregularities by some for-profit sponsors, this is a necessary system that also provides an additional layer of oversight by an academic officer for research findings that can have major clinical implications for patients.

JAMA's policy for disclosure of conflicts also is "tough-minded." The Post disclosed only that Mr. Stossel "serves as a consultant to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies." If Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz had submitted their comments about the article as a scholarly letter to JAMA (to which the authors would have been given the opportunity to reply), rather than as a newspaper opinion piece, they would have been required to specifically report all of their relevant financial conflicts of interest in a signed statement. This approach, which applies to every JAMA author, allows readers to evaluate articles with full understanding of all potential conflicts.

Mr. Stossel and Mr. Shaywitz's position that there is nothing wrong with "money in science" is untenable.

CATHERINE D. DEANGELIS

Editor in Chief

PHIL B. FONTANAROSA

Executive Deputy Editor

Journal of the American Medical Association

Chicago