First, They Came Bearing Trinkets for Doctors--Now, Junkets for Journalists

Over on the always-excellent Schwitzer Health News Blog,  the University of Minnesota’s Gary Schwitzer spotlights a notice that appeared in the Society of Professional Journalist’s (SPJ) e-newsletter:

“Interested in covering the health industry, science and medical research? Even more interested in using journalism to inform the public about the leading cause of illness and death worldwide? The National Press Foundation offers an all-expenses-paid four-day fellowship for journalists on ‘Cancer Issues.’ The program will be in Washington, D.C. Sept. 13-16. Fifteen fellowships will be awarded and they all include lodging, airfare and most meals. The applications deadline is 5 p.m. July 28, 2009."

Who exactly is paying for such largesse?  Schwitzer provides a link to the National Press Foundation website where, at the very bottom of the announcement, in small type, you discover that “This program is underwritten by Pfizer Inc.”  In an e-mail that I received earlier this week, Schwitzer writes:  “As always, I see health policy ramifications here. At a time when Pharma is negotiating just what its role in health care reform will be, this is especially troubling."

I couldn’t agree more.

 Schwitzer also points to a 2008 BMJ  article titled “Who’s Watching the Watchdog” by  Lisa Schwartz and Steve Woloshin, both associate professors at the  Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical practice, and Ray Moynihan, a lecturer at the University of New Castle, Australia.
 
“As watchdogs the media play a vital role in highlighting interconnections between doctors, researchers and the drug industry. But who watches the watchdogs? Financial ties between medical journalists and for-profit companies they cover in their reporting have received little attention in the media or from the research community. Such ties warrant scrutiny, not least because many of us first learn about new treatments from the news media, and these reports can affect the way the public uses health care.”

Schwitzer also quotes SPJ’s own code of ethics, adding “I don’t think SPJ should promote events in its own newsletter that, in my reading, invites journalists to violate the SPJ code.”  To read the whole post, click here.

 

Comments

[Shared Decision Making]

This is a very interesting take on the Schwitzer Health News Blog. Indeed in the present time we get to hear a lot about interconnections between doctors, researchers and the drug industry.

[Maggie Mahar]

Jim--

Schwitzer's real point is that SPJ shouldnt' be promoting this.

[jim jaffe]

well, perhaps journalists should take Nancy Reagan's advice and just say no.