During this episode of Q and A, which involved a discussion of the impact of computer technology on the wiring of the brain, a comment was made about the distinction between ‘peer-reviewed scientific information’ and ‘personal experience’. It was implied in this discussion that all peer-reviewed information is valid and of greater value to our knowledge-base than personal experience. Unfortunately in the age of industry partnerships with universities and research institutions this method of validating scientific information is no longer producing unbiased knowledge. It is well documented that the peer-reviewed system is flawed due to the influence of industry sponsorship at every stage of the research and publication process .
The commercialisation of universities has lead to an emphasis on research that supports industry profits (called Technology Transfer) as opposed to research that is in the public interest. These two interest groups do not always overlap. Research into the safety and efficacy of scientific and medical products is mostly funded by industry and the study designs of trials are not made available for independent assessment. This results in the public putting their faith in the conclusions that are drawn in these studies and published in peer-reviewed journals. Many medical journals are also funded by industry and the editors can influence the studies that are chosen for publication. Drug companies and biotechnology companies can select which studies are published and many of the studies with negative findings are not being published: they are suppressed. This has the effect of producing medical literature in the peer-reviewed journals with false-positive findings (Goldacre 2012 p2).
When a study with negative results is published in a peer-reviewed journal it is not promoted to the public through mainstream channels of debate. In addition, 50% of the income for medical journals comes from pharmaceutical advertising and reprint orders (Angell 2009) and many of the authors of the articles have financial ties to the companies sponsoring the research. These conflicts of interest are very relevant to the validity of the information that is presented in scientific journals. Much of the peer-reviewed literature is no longer objective.
This institutionalised bias in the medical and scientific research is enhanced further by the practice of ‘ghost writing’ where doctors are paid to sign their names to articles they haven’t written. In this way credibility and an appearance of independence is given to the conclusions from industry-funded science that is published in peer-reviewed journals.
