A new company aims to clean up the FDA's messy data for reporting drug adverse events and market it to pharma and other businesses. Health reporters can benefit from the company's work, too.
In the war against ghostwriting in the medical literature, the rules can only get you so far.
A pharma insider offers some strict rules for medical researchers to avoid pharma ghostwriting and other conflicts of interest in their work — and help save the reputation of medical science.
Normally I would salivate over a workshop titled "Let Me Be Clear: Science Journalism in the Age of the Genome and Twitter." But then my building excitement and anticipation was doused by a real buzz kill in the middle of the sponsor logos.
Shannon Brownlee offers a not-so-modest proposal for universities to stamp out pharma ghostwriting benefiting researchers.
Always pay for your own dinner and other rules for academics who interested in working with pharmaceutical companies — but want to retain their independence.
Remember that dating book "The Rules"? Academics entering into partnerships with pharmaceutical companies could use a similar set of rules to avoid future career heartbreak.
Clinical trials aren't just about drugs. Should other interventions be given a pass because Big Pharma isn't involved?
With only 17 to 18 percent of NIH grant applications funded this year - the lowest level on record - are RCTs costing millions, cost effective?
Should a university president be penalized for standing by while university researchers put their names on scientific papers written by pharma-paid ghostwriters?
