A recent post at my health care blog reviewed a study on medical ghostwriting. As a ghostwriter myself, albeit, not a medical ghostwriter, there were several disturbing parts to this story.

Snapshot of Story

The subject of my post was an article published in PLoS Medicine that reviewed the medical ghostwriting policies of the top 50 academic medical centers.

The authors of the article defined medical ghostwriting as the hiring of writers, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, to write articles under the byline of academic researchers. That’s my first problem – their definition of medical ghostwriting.

My second big problem is that what they described actually goes on. Sometimes I can be a real Pollyanna, but I find the accusations appalling. I don’t doubt them; it is simply disturbing.

Defining Terms

To give you some background, let’s define some of the terms used in this post. Let’s start with medical writers. I considered specializing in medical writing. I even joined the American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) at the time.

Although much of what I do, when I am writing for my health care niche, falls into AMWA’s definition of medical communicator, I found advertised work for medical writers targeted the more scientific side of the position. I soon discovered that was not my cup of tea.

I admire and respect my colleagues that write in that genre. I consider myself detail-oriented, but they have it down to a science. Sorry – bad pun. After reading the article, I went in search of reactions from medical writers. Here is some of what I found.

The Ugly Side of Research

One medical writer explained the topic was a complicated one. Drug companies that often want to control how the results are published fund a large amount of research.

As noted in the PLoS Medical article, the problem occurs when medical writers are hired by the drug companies to write articles for publication in medical journals. The articles have the researchers’ bylines, but no acknowledgment of the medical writer’s role. At a minimum, it is a conflict of interest. At its worst, it falsifies data.

The problem is a serious one that questions the validity of research and, in the opinion of the authors of the PLoS Medical article, presents a threat to the public.

Ghostwriter Does Not Equal Fraud

Leigh Steere is a freelance science ghostwriter who also had a problem with the article’s use of the term medical ghostwriting. Leigh posted a comment at the PLoS Medicine’s site, explaining her concern.

You can read her full comment here, but the following is an excerpt. I wish to thank Leigh for her permission to use her comment in this post.

 

“This article uses the term “ghostwriting” in an unhelpful way…Many scientists want a trained writer to help them articulate their research clearly–either because they don’t have time to write or they feel they aren’t strong writers. Getting ghostwriting assistance…is very different than having a pharmaceutical representative influence the study. If ghostwriting is banned, then we’ve a got a situation akin to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

 

The Mid-Atlantic chapter of AMWA updated an article on their site that discusses Ghostwriting and the Medical Writer. The author notes that AMWA “discourages” the use of the term ghostwriter – undoubtedly, due to the negative connotation in the medical writing field. The article provides sound advice for dealing with difficult situations and reviews AMWA’s Code of Ethics and position statement.

Leigh nailed my concern. When a word is used beyond its descriptive intent, we run the risk of inaccurately labeling someone. The study’s use of medical ghostwriting as a synonym for unethical behavior is, in my opinion, a disservice to all ethical, professional medical writers who are also ghostwriters.

A rose by any other name…

What’s your opinion?