Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T18:26:16.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflict of interest and the British Journal of Psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

I. C. Wright
I. C. Wright*
Affiliation:
The Old Manor Hospital, Wilton Road, Salisbury SP2 7EP, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Columns
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 180 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 82
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

There has been debate in medical journals over the potential for conflicts of interest to bias scientific judgements: “we should pay attention to conflict of interest not only when it is clear that a judgement has been influenced by conflict of interest but simply when it might have been” (Reference SmithSmith, 1994). The BMJ requires authors to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding competing interests. Editorial staff may also be vulnerable to conflicts of interest. The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine was criticised for links with the pharmaceutical industry (Reference GottleibGottleib, 2000).

The drug company Wyeth sponsors the educational organisation Neurolink. Although Neurolink has educational components, it may also fulfil a marketing function. Its educational materials appear to give undue prominence to venlafaxine, manufactured by Wyeth. The Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry is a member of the Neurolink Advisory Board as well as a member of the working party which produced the ‘depression guide’ (Neurolink Advisory Board, 2000).

The British Journal of Psychiatry has recently included a paper written by two Wyeth employees and a Wyeth consultant (Reference Thase, Entsuah and RudolphThase et al, 2001). This is a commercially valuable paper in which venlafaxine is described as having benefits compared with other antidepressants. It has already been cited in advertisements for Wyeth's venlafaxine preparations. I believe that the paper should have contained a declaration of interest by the Editor of theBritish Journal of Psychiatry, making clear his links with Wyeth. Perhaps the editor of a major medical journal should not have such a prominent link with any drug company.

I hope that the Journal will strengthen its policy on competing interests, including a detailed register of interests for editorial staff, referees and authors (including authors of letters) on its website. This should include the magnitude of payments: there is a big difference between a drug company paying someone £10 travel expenses and £10 000 consultancy fees. Significant competing interests should be summarised in the published articles. At the very least, readers would learn a lot about the dependency between medical research and big business.

Footnotes

EDITED BY MATTHEW HOTOPF

Declaration of interest

I am paid £2000 per year for editorial work for Schizophrenia Monitor, a review journal sponsored by the drug company Novartis.

References

Gottleib, S. (2000) Controversy over new Editor at New England Journal of Medicine. BMJ, 320, 1358.Google Scholar
Neurolink Advisory Board (2000) Depression: A Guide to its Recognition and Management in General Practice. London: Neurolink.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (1994) Conflict of interest and the BMJ. BMJ, 308, 4.Google Scholar
Thase, M. E. Entsuah, A. R. & Rudolph, R. L. (2001) Remission rates during treatment with venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 234–241.Google Scholar

This journal is not currently accepting new eletters.

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.