Last month, PLoS Medicine published an article of an examination of the financial conflicts of interest of members of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which is responsible for updating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). In an editorial that discusses the response to this paper, editors of PLoS Medicine write:
“Journals, professional associations, clinical guideline developers, and others need to worry not just that disclosure provides a band-aid to the real problem of the [conflict of interest] itself, but that any attempt to stem the trouble through disclosure policies may actually be worsening the problem.”
Concerns have been raised after media coverage regarding financial ties between many of the experts responsible for defining conditions and treatments of mental health and the pharmaceutical companies, which sell drugs for mental health. Even though it is common knowledge that financial conflicts of interest cloud the objectivity and integrity of medicine, the editors ask, “Are disclosure mandates simply a band-aid on an unrelenting problem of bias?”
They point out that despite the fact that disclosure offers explicit and transparent details, which are significant in terms of interpretation, credibility and presented value of the information, it nevertheless fails to address the real problem of the conflict in terms of overemphasis and reliance on disclosure policies. According to social science studies, this may, in fact, worsen the situation.
The editors comment that:
“Disclosure policies will never be the solution and are very likely exacerbating the problem of bias in medicine. Indeed, if disclosure worsens bias, then this is a game-changer for discussion and debate about managing conflicts of interest in medicine.”
Written By Petra Rattue