For Shame, Merck and Elsevier

Merck and Elsevier, two life sciences giants, are taking different tacks in responding to a crisis that arose from an ill-judged publishing collaboration. Will the company that keeps schtum get away scott free while the one that engages takes a substantial hit?

The background: My colleague Bob Grant recently wrote a news story¹ about a curious publication, The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. It sounds like a respectable journal, but it isn't. Published in the early 2000s, it contained a mix of local and international "news", reprinted articles from Elsevier journals, and unsigned Reviews.

The problem was this: The publication was invented to support Merck drugs and the AJBJM was entirely paid for by Merck, yet nowhere was the relationship disclosed. It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal.

Grant's article generated significant news coverage in the media and a massive negative reaction towards both companies in the blogosphere. Not just from the usual anti-pharma extremists—more temperate science and librarian groups were, rightfully, alarmed.

Joint projects between the pharmaceutical industry and science publishers are not undesirable. In fact, at The Scientist (and in my previous position at Nature) I spend a portion of my time on them. For example, the award-winning supplement that we published on schizophrenia, supported by Johnson & Johnson, is widely used by patient groups and in teaching. And the sponsorship revenue helps keep this magazine afloat.

But we always make it clear when content is sponsored. In supplements, the role of the sponsor is described and acknowledged in an editorial, and sponsored content within the magazine is labeled "Special Advertising Section". In addition, we don't use our staff writers for sponsored projects, which helps prevent conflicts of interest.

Elsevier and Merck erred in failing to make the sponsorship of AJBJM clear to readers.

In response to a list of questions about the journal, Merck shamefully ducked responsibility: Merck and its Australian subsidiary "understood that Elsevier envisaged the complimentary publication would draw on the vast resources ... to deliver novel and timely full text articles and abstracts to physicians," they wrote. "We believe that your remaining questions are most appropriately directed to Elsevier, the publisher of the Journal."

For Elsevier, the stakes are much higher than for Merck. Publishing is their livelihood and they must maintain a good reputation. They acknowledged the mistake.

Bob Grant was told by a spokesperson: "I wish there was greater disclosure that it was a sponsored journal," but he maintained that Elsevier had no plans to look into the matter. That changed, likely in response to the widespread criticism of the "sordid subterfuge," as one comment on our Web site alleged. Within a week, the CEO of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, Michael Hansen, released a statement that included: "This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place." He admitted that six different Titles appeared in the series, and stated that they are conducting an internal review.²

Kudos to Elsevier. But they need to go further.

They need to provide the names of the sponsors of the six faux journals. Who besides Merck colluded in "unacceptable practice"?

They should also release financial information. I'd like to know the price that bought the integrity of one of the leading science publishers.

At that point, I'll be happy to accept that "the integrity of Elsevier's publications and business practices remains intact," as the Elsevier spokesperson maintains. I know Elsevier from the inside—they gave me my first job in publishing.

I've met many Merck people too, including the CEO, and they have impressed me greatly. It's a distinguished company that does indispensible work. But Merck needs to maintain the highest standards in everything they do. They have to come clean on AJBJM.

rgallagher@the-scientist.com

In my idea, we need RMA : Revolution in Medical Affairs. Please The Scientist ....


cahtuban

Just a clarification: the "Merck" pharmaceutical company mentioned in this article is not the "Merck" pharmaceutical company operating in Australia.

Merck & Co., the U.S. company referred to in this article, can only use the name "Merck" in North America. In Australia, it uses the name Merck, Sharp & Dohme Australia, as pointed out in a previous article by Bob Grant.

Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany, has the global rights to the "Merck" name outside of North America. Merck & Co. was the German Merck's U.S. subsidiary until 1917, when it was confiscated by the U.S. government. Since then the two companies have been completely separate. Merck KGaA is the world's oldest chemicals and pharmaceuticals company. It was founded in 1668 in Darmstadt, Germany, and has been operating continuously since then.

I just wanted to make this distinction clear because Merck KGaA uses the "Merck" name in Australia. It, of course, is not involved with the Elsevier publication mentioned in this article.

What occured between the intimate relationship between Merck and Elsevier is unfortunately not uncommon. It's deceptive, and atrophies the scientific method.

Merck unfortunately has gone from what was a notable ethical drug company into one that ultimately places their shareholders above the restoration of the health of others.

Elsevier, regardless of their response on this issue, market themselves to drug companies for this very reason they got busted for these fake journals. Check out their website, and you shall read how they sell themselves to drug companies to facilitate the marketing objectives of drug companies.

In the situation when only money decides the course of action scientific research takes up the cases like this are going to happen more frequently.The ways of scientific research and its reporting in the journals are changing fast;newer means of publication and un-ethical nexus between scientists and industry will be promoting this type of behavior.There is no substitute for integerity and it is being sacrificed by business interests.
Gian Singh Aulakh

In fact, Open access could exacerbate it further by making it easier to create such biased "article collections" masquerading as journals.

Most Open Access content is released under the Creative Commons license which allows reproduction and reproduction (for any purpose) as long the authors are accredited correctly. You do not have to seek any permissions for this.

All one has to do is trawl through Open Access for studies that support your marketing messages, bundle them together, ensure all attributions are made, and print them under your marvelous "Australasian Journal of Unbiased Science" or such and such.

Some Creative Commons licenses even allow modification. You can remove any potentially harmful messages from the article, and still not be in violation of the license agreement.

It's one reason why Industry should be more supportive of Open Source science. No more need to budget in costs for acquiring rights to journal reprints.

Open Access journals are the possible solution to the Merck-Elsevier connection to publish a marketing tool as a peer reviewed journal. Since Open Access journals are much more available to every person, regardless their location on the globe, their salary, or their connections with academic and/or governmental institutions, the Merck-Elsevier connection could have been detected much earlier. When we read about two giant corporations that might have got together and found a way to make more money from the same very people that paid for lots of the research done these days from their income tax, brings us back the memories of some scary science-fiction movies. Open Access journals and free information to all, might give us hope where Closed Access failed!

Yes Merck did something Mercky. Elsevier severed itself from its responsibility. But then, what are we doing?
We are preaching that doing something wrong is alright, but getting caught is not.
The central issue is conflict of interest and lack of its declaration.Equally important issue at stake is claimed to be the encashment of one's wrong doings. So we must know what is the money that actually changed hands. For what?
Either we go by trust or we don't. Whom we trust cannot be a statement after the fact. If we go by trust, there is some merit in handling issues without these being in public scrutiny...like who the referes are or who the handling editors are, though not the authors since they are being judged for their work objectively by others.If we do not trust, the issue is equallly simple. All editors and referees must declare their earnings and publicly declare any conflict of interest before they can comment on or process a manuscript.This is when market forces are primarily operating...pressure groups, interest groups and so on. The stock market does not allow insider trading, but the journals do! That is what Merck/Elsevier controversy is all about and it is only the tip of the iceberg.
We must clearly ask the question, is there anything wrong published in the spurious journals? Let us argue that the answer could be 'no'. Does that make the offense any slighter? If it is a compilation of right articles that also benefit the company, what is wrong? After all, it is alright to propagate both in journals and grants only molecular breeding (an oxymoron of sorts) in today's agricultural research, is there not a silent collusion between biotech companies, seed companies, the project grant managers and even government that undermines classical breeding? Yet is it that we will not accept the Mercky affair since such a subterfuge is not acceptable? We really do not worry about if the aricles are right or wrong since the process adopted is not acceptable.Everywhere else, we docilely accept.
Though I am repeating myself, we are losing the sight of the forest for the trees. It is the publication world which is our main focus and how to keep it proper and trim. As I see in these pages as elsewhere, very few ideas seem to emerge. That is the real pity.

Yes, I'd also like to know how much it cost to buy Elsevier's integrity (if there ever was one).
Not that it's all that important. But I'm a scientist, I'm curious.

First, let me applaud Richard Gallagher's article and sentiment. Although I found the first volume of The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine to be quite even-handed, with most of the articles providing information on osteoporosis and the two articles that discussed treatments giving fair and even-handed support to the Merck drug Fosamax and to the non-Merck drugs discussed, there should be no question that it was simply wrong to hide the fact that this was a commissoned, free periodical intended for marketing support and not (as it appeared to be) a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research. And I would have expected acnowledegment of same and apologies from not only Elsiever but from Merck, as well.

But I am quite intrigued by the absolutely insane comments this article has engendered. Of the 3 comments thus far, only the Public Service Announcement from the anonymous poster is helpful and informative (so why post anonymously?), in contrast to the stark raving comments from John Fryer and Sergio Stagnaro, both of whom appear to be quite off their meds. I mean, 'Merck is responsible for killing hundreds of day old babies and inarcerating their parents', and 'Merck is promugating the lie that HPV infection has anything to do with cervical cancer'? Really? Kind of makes a good case for some editing of comments to articles published in The Scientist....

Anyway, good job to Richard Gallagher!

David B. Karpf, MD

Merck have a known policy of SEARCH and DESTROY.

It was originally aimed at those doctors that opposed their novel drugs like vioxx.

They also SEARCH for a "paid for" scientist or many such scientists to publish their research AND DESTROY any adverse data so that the "paid for" person is unaware of the pile of bodies associated with their products.

I personally know of many babies of one day of age who have been subject to SEARCH and DESTROY tactics by this company.

By walking away from their responsibility this company is therefore responsible for the incarceration in prison of many innocent carers or parents who watch their child slowly die from the first time they saw them in hospital.

Many dads probably not seeing them until the companies products begin the SEARCH and DESTROY with their products.

The last time we have had people getting away with such crimes by the private citizens was in the days of PROHIBITION of dangerous drugs ie alcohol.

I think its time to bring back PROHIBITION of Mercks killer products in an ironic twist of fate.

In France they try such specimen heads of companies for MANSLAUGHTER.

Let's get those in prison that are guilty not the parents who take the blame for Merck products.

Keep schtum

UK slang.

Meaning

Say nothing - especially in circumstances where saying the wrong thing may get you into trouble.

Once upon the time, some greatest pharmaceutical industries succeded in convincing a lot of honest scientists that cervix cancer is brought about by HPV, in spite of Oncological Terrain and Cervix Uteri oncological Inherited Real Risk (Ask www.google.com). As a matter of fact, all free, farsighted, open minded, up-dated, Physicians and Editors know what do mean Oncological Terrain and OT-dependent Inherited Real Risk. As a consequence, a cervix cancer my occur exclusively if are present above-mentioned pathological alterations of psycho-neuro-endocrine-immunological system, and respectively the congenital cervical microcirculatory remodelling, characterised by newborn-pathological, type I, sub-type a), ONCOLOGICAL, Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices, I discovered and described(Bibliography, and Oncological Terrain in my website or ask www.google.com). In those days, beside some paper posted in italian websites,I have frankly written to pharmaceutical industries, Swedish Academy of Science, my Ordine dei Medici di Genova, a.s.o., Istituto Europeo Oncologico, about the non sense of vaccination against HPV in order to prevent cervix cancer, at least in ALL young teen-agers,and especially in those women negative for oncological terrain, as well as in women positive for OT, but negative for Inherited Real Risk of cervic cancer. Either I didn't receive any answer, or trivial answers, corroborating my definition: today's Medicine is Maid of Economics.
In addition, all famous peer-reviews are ready to publish sponsorised papers of physicians working at University, but they reject immediately, even without understand nothing, articles of the Author, working in a simple Institute, e.g., Quantum-Biophysical Semeiotics Research Laboratory, who want to spread among physicians, for instance, CAD Inherited Real Risk (1-9)

1) Stagnaro-Neri M., Stagnaro S. Deterministic Chaos, Preconditioning and Myocardial Oxygenation evaluated clinically with the aid of Biophysical Semeiotics in the Diagnosis of Ischaeemic Heart Disease even silent. Acta Medica Mediterranea 13, 109-116, 1997.
2) Stagnaro S. A clinical efficacious maneouvre, reliable in bed-side diagnosing coronary artery disease, even initial or silent, as well as "heart coronary risk". 3rd Virtual International Congress of Cardiology, FAC,2003, LINK
3) Stagnaro Sergio.Biophysical Semeiotic Constitutions, Genomics, and Cardio-Vascular Diseases. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 2004, LINK
4) Stagnaro Sergio Endothelial cell function can ameliorate under safer drugs, such as Melatonin-Adenosine. BMC Cardiovascular disorders. 2004 LINK
5) Stagnaro S. Pre-Metabolic Syndrome: Locus primary prevention. NYAS web site. 1999 LINK
6) Stagnaro Sergio. Role of Coronary Endoarterial Blocking Devices in Myocardial Preconditioning - c007i. Lecture, V Virtual International Congress of Cardiology, 2007. LINK
7) Stagnaro Sergio. Newborn-pathological Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices in Diabetic and Dislipidaemic Constitution and Diabetes Primary Prevention. The Lancet. March 06 2007. LINK
8) Stagnaro Sergio. New bedside way in Reducing mortality in diabetic men and women. Ann. Int. Med.2007. LINK
9) Stagnaro Sergio. CAD Inherited Real Risk, Based on Newborn-Pathological, Type I, Subtype B, Aspecific, Coronary Endoarteriolar Blocking Devices. Diagnostic Role of Myocardial Oxigenation and Biophysical-Semeiotic Preconditioning. Commentary. www.athero.org. April, 2009. LINK