A tale of two professions..

Take a look at these quotes:

"The concerns about conflicts of interest are much more at the top of my mind than they were 10 or 15 years ago."

On close links with industry, this person says...
"...we are going to have to wean ourselves off a dependency that is generally inappropriate. This relationship is one of those things we need to clean up. The sooner the better."

"Some conflicts are unavoidable; but that doesn't make all conflicts permissible. Conflicts of interest should be avoided when possible, and the conflict resulting from the acceptance of gifts from industry is both voluntary and unnecessary."

"Disclosure is a highly limited tool for dealing with conflicts of interest,"

Many of us would think these quotes come from academic journalists? Perhaps people working in journalists' associations? Maybe just individual journalists at some meeting about ethics? But we'd be wrong. Those quotes are actually from doctors. All of them concerned about the influence industry is having on the medical profession and how it is skewing health decision-making leading to bias in research and harming patient care. Whole issues of leading medical journals have recently been donated to covering just one issue: ethics and conflicts of interest in medicine.

Similar issues are often discussed by journalists. Many of us are worried that journalists are too easily influenced by industry; too cosy with PR departments. Others are worried about professional standards. It isn't right that, on some publications, it appears to be standard practice to dream up case studies; to fiddle around with quotes to make them fit the narrative rather than the other way around; and, to ignore even basic ethical codes.

'Embellishing' is becoming accepted practice - and not just in some of the glamour titles. Its hardly worth pointing out that readers are becoming less and less sure what they can trust. Perhaps they'll start to look for alternatives.

But if some doctors and some journalists are concerned about ethics - there the similarities between the two professions ends. Colleagues argue that ethics and publishing no longer mix. Ethics is for wimps. A culture is in place where you can't question the ethics of the advertorial - even where readers aren't aware that the copy amounts to advertising.

Yet our medically qualified cousins can't stop debating the issue. Doctors commit whole journals to the subject. New professional groups such as nofreelunch.org and healthyskepticism.org are growing in strength and confidence and fighting industry influence in medicine. Doctors are increasingly questioning industry sponsorship of training, education and the notorious weekend symposium. Even more significantly, some medical journals are putting in place rigid new systems to ensure that conflicts of interest are declared. Leading journals are now starting to put real pressure on drug companies on the issue of biased research.

So what's my point? Just this - if doctors can get to grips with the issue, why the inertia among journalists?

Making ends meet

Most freelance journalists who make a decent living combine journalism with something else. Corporate work (selling your skills to companies for breathtakingly large daily fees) and teaching are popular among established hacks. Younger ones do bar work, call centres or anything they can get.

One young journalist has sworn off his sideline earner. Tom de Castella used to volunteer as a lab rat, doing clinical trials at the Parexel unit in the grounds of Northwick Park Hospital. Not any more.

I imagine he'll miss the money. Two grand a fortnight will take some replacing at the 250 pounds per thousand words that's typical for most jobbing freelances.

Les