Scientific Capture
The notion of “ghost-management” was first developed to show the extent of the use of ghostwriting and refers to a whole system of management behind closed doors used to influence scientific results in favor of corporate interests (Gagnon 2013; Sismondo 2007, 2018; Sismondo and Doucet 2010). Strategies to capture scientific knowledge and shape it to serve corporate interests can be classified in three categories:
- Inflating the number of favorable scientific publications,
- Suppressing the scientific results that could harm sales and
- Neutralizing independent academics and whistle-blowers.
In industrial sectors such as pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals, many studies found in scientific journals are written by ghostwriters or writing agencies paid for by larger corporations. These publications form part of carefully thought out publication plans that are essential to the success of promotional campaigns and the market launch of new products (Sismondo 2009). For example, internal documents from Pfizer revealed that between 1998 and 2000 the company directly initiated the writing of at least 85 scientific articles on the antidepressant drug sertraline (Zoloft). During this period, the entire scientific literature on this active substance only consisted of only 211 articles (Sismondo 2007); in this way, Pfizer produced a raft of articles showing the drug in a positive light which lessened the impact and influence of the critical studies. In the same way, Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer) generated about 50 articles in favour of hormone replacement therapy (Fugh-Berman 2010). Merck developed a ghostwriting campaign to promote its now-infamous drug rofecoxib (Vioxx): 96 articles were published, some of which failed to mention patient deaths in the drug’s clinical trials (Ross et al. 2008). GlaxoSmithKline ran a secret campaign to skew the literature in favour of its antidepressant drug paroxetine (Paxil). The campaign was called “Case Study Publication for Peer-Review”, or CASPPER for short, in reference to the well-known “friendly ghost” (Edwards 2009).
The second strategy is to restrain the disclosure of unfavourable results. In the pharmaceutical sector, private-sector clinical research produces private, confidential results as part of their intellectual property. They assume the right not to publish certain results, in the name of trade secrecy. And they are often not compelled by political and health authorities to make public the data obtained in clinical trials. Drug companies can therefore select what data they want to see published (Goldacre 2013).
For example, major pharmaceutical companies have systematically failed to publish unfavourable studies on the “new generation” of antidepressants, known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Of the 74 clinical trials that were conducted on these antidepressants, 38 produced positive results, while the other 36 showed the drug to have questionable or no efficacy. However, while 94% of the positive studies were published, only 8% of the unfavourable studies were published as negative results, and 15% of the negative studies were published in terms that suggested that the results were positive (Turner et al. 2008). Doctors reading the scientific literature got a biased view of the “benefits” of SSRIs, which explains why they so readily systematically prescribed these antidepressants to their patients. The scientific data show that for 70% of the patients taking SSRI antidepressants, the drug is no more effective than a placebo (Fournier et al., 2010), but unlike a placebo SSRIs are associated with serious adverse effects (e.g. an increased risk of suicide). It is fair to argue that the selective production of ignorance has become constitutive of how pharmaceutical companies do science today.
In the agro-chemical sector, declassified Monsanto documents from litigation reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defence of Monsanto products (Gillam 2017, 2021; McHenry 2018; Thacker 2022).
A third strategy is to intimidate and neutralise independent researchers who produce studies that show the product in an unfavourable light. For example, in Merck’s internal e-mails, which came out during lawsuits over the harm caused by its drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), it was revealed that the company had drawn up a hit list of “rogue” researchers who had criticised Vioxx. One e-mail recommended that the researchers on the hit list had to be “discredited” and “neutralized”. “Seek them out and destroy them where they lived” read one of the e-mails. This intimidation was the result of the work of an entire team that systematically monitored everything that was said about the product (Edwards 2009). Similarly, in the case of the antidiabetic drug rosiglitazone (Avandia), which was withdrawn from the market in 2010 for safety reasons, a report by the US Senate explained that the main strategy of GlaxoSmithKline executives when confronted with the publication of negative clinical results was to downplay the importance of these results and to intimidate independent researchers (US Senate Committee on Finance 2010). The Monsanto Papers also shed light on systematic intimidation and trolling strategies deployed against independent researchers (Gillam 2021; Seralini and Douzelet 2020). Internal documents also showed step by step strategies used by Monsanto to discredit investigative journalists criticizing their products (Foucart and Horel 2019; Gillam 2019).
It is important to understand that these strategies apply not only to pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals, but also to other sectors like tobacco, manufacturing, mining, transportation, alcohol, hospital, soft drinks, nuclear, and utility (Gagnon 2013; Wieland et al, 2014). Such strategies are no exception: a company that would refrain from these strategies in the name of ethics would simply lose their market shares (Gagnon 2013). If profits are affected by the scientific literature about the risks of the product, it is more than likely that dominant corporations in the sector will deploy strategies to capture science in order to build their intangible assets. For example, similar ghost-management strategies to capture science were used by tobacco companies to downplay the risks of dependence and cancer for their products while touting the benefits and self-confidence associated with smoking cigarettes (Proctor 2012). Sugar manufacturers and sugary food companies used similar strategies to downplay sugar’s role in heart disease and shift the focus to saturated fat (Kearns, Schmidt, and Glantz 2016). In another example, manufacturers of medical devices systematically concealed adverse effects associated withtheir products while promoting these products with false claims (Lenzer 2017).
References
Edwards, Jim. (2009a, May 6). Merck Created Hit List to “Destroy,” “Neutralize” or “Discredit” Dissenting Doctors. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42841411/merck-created-hit-list-to-destroy-neutralize-or-discredit-dissenting-doctors/
Edwards, Jim. (2009b, August 20). “CASSPER” Was GSK’s Friendly Ghostwriting Program on Paxil. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42842602/cassper-was-gsks-friendly-ghostwriting-program-on-paxil/
Foucart, Stéphane & Horel, Stéphane. (2019, May 9). « Fichier Monsanto »: Des dizaines de personnalités classées illégalement selon leur position sur le glyphosate. Le Monde.fr. https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/05/09/fichier-monsanto-des-dizaines-de-personnalites-classees-illegalement-selon-leur-position-sur-le-glyphosate_5460190_3244.html
Gagnon, M.-A. (2013). Corruption of pharmaceutical markets: Addressing the misalignment of financial incentives and public health. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12066
Gillam, C. (2017). Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. Island Press.
Gillam, C. (2021). The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice. Island Press.
Gillam, Carey. (2019, March 27). Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC, Pro-Glyphosate Efforts. U.S. Right to Know. https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tracker/monsanto-executive-reveals-17-million-for-anti-iarc-pro-glyphosate-efforts/
Kearns, C. E., Schmidt, L. A., & Glantz, S. A. (2016). Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(11), 1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
Lenzer. (2017). The Danger Within Us by Jeanne Lenzer | Little, Brown and Company (Little, Brown and Company). https://www.littlebrown.com/titles/jeanne-lenzer/the-danger-within-us/9780316343787/
McHenry, L. B. (2018). The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 29(3–4), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-180028
Proctor, R. N. (2012). Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition.
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest Authorship and Ghostwriting in Publications Related to Rofecoxib: A Case Study of Industry Documents From Rofecoxib Litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.15.1800
Seralini, Gilles-Éric & Douzelet, Jérôme. (2020). Affaire Roundup à la lumière des Monsanto papers. https://www.gallimardmontreal.com/catalogue/livre/affaire-roundup-a-la-lumiere-des-monsanto-papers-seralini-gilles-eric-9782330140588
Sismondo, S. (2007). Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry? PLOS Medicine, 4(9), e286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101047
Sismondo, S. (2018). Ghost-Managed Medicine: Big Pharma’s Invisible Hands. Mattering Press.
Sismondo, S., & Doucet, M. (2010). Publication Ethics and the Ghost Management of Medical Publication. Bioethics, 24(6), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x
Thacker, P. D. (2022, May 3). Monsanto’s Ghostwriting to Influence Science and Media [Substack newsletter]. The DisInformation Chronicle. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/monsantos-ghostwriting-to-influence
US Senate Committee on Finance. (2010, February 20). Grassley, Baucus Release Committee Report on Avandia | The United States Senate Committee on Finance. https://www.finance.senate.gov/release/grassley-baucus-release-committee-report-on-avandia