Ralph King Jr.'s Marketplace article ("Medical Journals Rarely Disclose Researchers' Ties," Feb. 2) calls for further analysis of the assertion, by the journal Epidemiology's Kenneth Rothman, that today's conventional wisdom in favor of disclosing corporate funding of research is a "new McCarthyism."
In a court of law, evidence is admissible only if the probative value of that evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect. The same rule should apply in the court of public opinion. The alleged probative value of disclosure of funding is "to flag potential bias." The obvious prejudicial effect, as Dr. Rothman points out, is that disclosure of any corporate ties "can sometimes unfairly taint studies that are scientifically solid." Yet, how valuable is "flagging"? As any good scientist will attest, every study's hypothesis, methodology and conclusion should be evaluated according to rigorous scientific standards, regardless of any potential conflict of interest. Thus, the "flagging for bias" argument -- the sole justification for disclosure by self-righteous journalists -- is merely a red herring. All we are left with is the prejudice.
By the way, your article failed to answer what some think is a relevant question: Who funded the funding study?
Jeff Stier
Associate Director
American Council on Science and Health
New York
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.