On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:05, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study > > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 > > criticises media reports for citing studies and experts with financial ties > to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties to the reader. > > If it's improper for the media to withhold this information, it's equally > improper for us to withhold it in our articles. It's a question of correct > attribution: "According to a 2007 randomised, double-blind, placebo- > controlled trial funded by company X, involving 50 patients, their product > Y ..." > > I don't think our medical sources guideline addresses this point at > present, i.e. that we should name funding sources in our attribution. So > that is an area we could do some work on. At least it will be clear to > the reader who paid for what. > I think that would make an important difference to our coverage. It would not only inform the reader that the sources we're relying on have a financial interest in the outcome. It would also alert the editors who push to rely on those sources that additional disinterested sources may be needed too.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
