Rx for full disclosure

Seattle Times: Full public disclosure is important to the credibility of medical and scientific journals. The public needs to know who benefits from the publication of drug studies, medical articles and related information.
That's why a study released by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest bears mentioning. The advocacy group found that 163 articles from prestigious publications, including The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association, had no disclosure statements from its authors and 8 percent of the authors didn't reveal ties to companies that could profit from the articles' publication. Thirteen ethical lapses don't equal widespread malfeasance.
It does put these publications at risk of eroding the public's trust in medical information. That information is more than ever available to patients through Web sites.
Lack of disclosure hinders the public's ability to understand and accept information emerging from the science and medical fields.
Cholesterol levels
Take, for example, the federal government's recommendation to lower cholesterol levels. The shift means millions of people could wind up spending $100 a month for cholesterol-reducing drugs, or risk heart disease.
There is no reason to suspect anything amiss in the policy shift. The change came after five clinical trials showed current cholesterol goals were not aggressive enough and more-intense drug treatment is needed.
Without full trust in the gatekeepers of published science, the public is left to wonder if the medical advice they receive is good for their health or good for someone else's bottom line.
The route out of this conundrum lies in full public disclosure.