There’s been plenty of ink expended lately on the publication transgressions of some of the largest drug companies. You know, the unreported safety data, misrepresented efficacy results, misleading study conclusions, etc, all of which smacks of deception to the average reader. However, there may be a lesser known but more insidious issue when it comes to the presentation and communication of scientific results: spin. And in the ongoing discussion on the dwindling trust between Pharma and its customers, it deserves attention.
Expected, say, from an adept politico or effective lawyer, spin is a way of life in many public arenas and de rigueur for some occupations. But what about in the realm of scientific investigation? Are some scientists—supposedly guided by the gods of objectivity and bound by tenets of the scientific method—twisting their reported data towards the more positive, be it intentionally or inadvertently?
The answer in a word? Oui. French researcher Dr. Isabelle Boutron and colleagues reported that spinning the nonsignificant (negative) results of RCTs was fairly common. In an analysis presented at the 2009 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, they found spin in 18% of paper titles, as well as in 29%, 43%, and 50% of the results, discussion, and conclusions sections, respectively. Perhaps more alarming was the finding that 1/3 of abstracts of the 70+ papers they assessed contained a high level of spin, and more than 40% had spin in multiple text sections.
Confronting and solving the spin problem, she thinks, will require scientists, journal editors/reviewers, and consumers to review and read study papers “differently”, ie, more critically. And maybe develop guidelines on how to recognize and deter the language of spin.
I think we in the medical communications profession have a key role to play, too. We need to be aware of the tendency of at least some scientists to present the fruits of their labor in the best possible light. We need to redouble our efforts to communicate data transparently, clearly, and accurately. And we need to have the expertise to see, and the moxie to challenge, spin wherever it emanates.
Boutron’s conclusions made me think of something I learned in graduate school about the theories of the Polish philosopher-physician Ludwik Fleck. In part, he proposed that researchers were incapable of finding scientific truth because they were always prone to see what they wanted to see in the results of their studies.
The cynic in me agrees with this assumption on human nature…but both the idealist and pragmatist in me believe something can be done about it.
- Ted J. Slowik, Director – Scientific Information, S+R Medical Communications
There’s been plenty of ink expended lately on the publication transgressions of some of the largest drug companies. You know, the unreported safety data, misrepresented efficacy results, misleading study conclusions, etc, all of which smacks of deception to the average reader. However, there may be a lesser known but more insidious issue when it comes to the presentation and communication of scientific results: spin. And in the ongoing discussion on the dwindling trust between Pharma and its customers, it deserves attention.
+1