American Medical Writers Association - Controversy Surrounding Use of Medical Writers

Controversy Surrounding Use of Medical Writers

Controversy has surrounded the field of medical writing because of guest authorship and the use of medical ghostwriters, particularly when pharmaceutical companies fund the research. Critics charge that the use of biomedical communicators encourages commercial bias. Advocates claim that professional biomedical communicators provide a valuable service that improves the quality and timeliness of publication of research. The debate centers around how to define authorship.

In 2003, AMWA published a position statement on the contributions of medical writers to scientific publications in the AMWA Journal. This article also explained the work of the AMWA 2002 Task Force on the Contributions of Medical Writers to Scientific Publications as it prepared, adopted, and presented the position statement.

In 2005, the World Association of Medical Editors tightened its policy on ghost writing of medical research papers after a US journal highlighted allegedly illegitimate ghostwriting practices.

The New York Times reported on a study released by editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association that found a significant number of articles in top medical journals published in 2008 were written by ghostwriters. Cindy Hamilton (AMWA president at the time) replied to this article in a letter to the editor by stating, in part:

Ghostwriting is unethical and must be distinguished from collaboration between researchers (authors) and professional medical writers, whose contributions and financing are disclosed. Authors determine content, and writers ensure that it is communicated effectively and promptly. This partnership advances science by facilitating timely publication of research findings, ultimately benefiting the public.

Reuters has reported that some medical journal editors are resorting to computer forensics to help reveal ghost writers on manuscripts.

Despite conflicting viewpoints on ghostwriting and guest authorship in medical communications, common ground can be found. This viewpoint was neatly summed up in the September 2009 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings:

Despite the intense debate and accusations about ghostwriting and guest authoring, there is consistent agreement among many organizations on 2 issues: (1) Medical writing is a valuable, accepted function that can assist in the timely, well-organized, clear communication of scientific studies. (2) Medical writing or editorial assistance that does not merit named authorship should be acknowledged, along with the source of funding support for such work.