 |
 |
Hi Jeremy, While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in your message, it is content -specific expertise (and not methodological expertise) and tacit-knowledge in a given subject area that defines "experts" ... As saying goes, people want to know not only if the authors "talk the talk, but walked the walk"... Have they sweated those 10,00 hours that are said to be minimum to acquire expertise in a particular topic? That's why reading the article about a drug X for disease Y will not be perceived as credible unless they are written by the folks in the field...who, alas, by and large, and almost by definition must have intellectual or financial conflict of interests... Ben Ps having said this, there may be a hybrid model to satisfy all sides. The one I have in mind are the NIH consensus statements. The experts with COI are invited to provide their input but cannot write the article. So, perhaps joint authorship - composed of people with and without industry ties- may be a solution? Sent from my iPad On Aug 15, 2011, at 6:18 AM, "Jeremy Howick" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear All, > > A recent claim posted to the list was: > > "The choice ... is between having reviews written by somebody with some > linkage (and dependency) from the industry, having them written by someone > who has little idea of what is writing about, on having no reviews at all." > > This categorization, like George Bush's categorization of states that were > "with him or against him" (one might be unsure) is questionable. > > There are a great number of people who are eminently qualified to write > narrative reviews who have no ties to industry. People in my limited > circle who are experts in their fields but have no industry ties include > Professor Jeffrey Aronson who is an expert in Clinical Pharmacology, Sir > Iain Chalmers, who is an expert in systematic reviews, Mike Clarke, an > expert in many things and there are many others in the UK, Canada, the US, > Italy, Denmark, and elsewhere. > > MORE IMPORTANTLY, even if we can't find an expert in the precise field who > has no industry ties, there are many experts in related fields who are > eminently qualified to write narrative reviews in these fields. In fact > coming from a related field might offer a fresh perspective. (To name just > one example, Louis Pasteur was not a medical doctor.) Indeed the promise > of an editorial in a prominent journal that would change practice would be > a sufficient motivation for many potential 'related' experts to write > fantastic, and less problematic reviews. > > > Jeremy > > > * please note my email address is now [log in to unmask] > -- > > Jeremy Howick PhD, MSc, PGCert, DipSoc, BA > MRC/ESRC Postdoctoral Fellow > Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine > University of Oxford > Oxford OX3 7LF > United Kingdom > www.cebm.net > www.primarycare.ox.ac.uk/dept_staff/jeremy-howick/ > eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140519667X,descCd-authorInfo.htm > l > > > > > On 13/08/2011 04:34, "Piersante Sestini" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> The choice then is between having reviews written by somebody with some >> linkage (and dependency) from the industry, having them written by >> someone who has little idea of what is writing about, on having no >> reviews at all.