Earlier this week, we wrote how the European Association for the Study of the Liver had difficulty maintaining an embargo on abstracts to be reviewed at its upcoming annual conference, even though the material is freely available on the Internet (see here). Then Embargo Watch notes that the public relations firm for the EASL is Cohn & Wolfe, which also represents various drugmakers, such as Allergan, Genzyme, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Merck ( see this).
This raises a question: how can a public relations firm equitably run the media operations for a professional society conference and simultaneously represent drugmakers who may have a great deal at stake at these conferences? You know, abstracts from one or more clients could be on display at the gathering. How can the EASL feel confident, for instance, that a competitor to a Cohn & Wolfe client gets fair play?
As Embargo Watch points out, drugmakers "are notorious for angling for press attention at meetings, setting up their own press conferences, for example, in violation of society peer review and other regulations. How can a company that represents them be expected to treat them as severely as they would others?" (you can read more here).
However, Cohn & Wolfe is not the only public relations firm to have played both sides of the fence. B&K does the same thing (read this and this), as has Tonic Life (look here and here). But does that make it right?
We asked Cohn & Wolfe to explain how it handles such situations and Mike Kan, the global healthcare practice leader, sent us this: "We have no conflict of interest, as Cohn & Wolfe has always been completely transparent with professional society clients such as the EASL about our pharmaceutical clients. Further, we have installed the proper firewalls to ensure the safeguarding of interests for all of our clients. The fact is, we have represented professional societies for several years and have never had any issues or concerns arise.” We then asked how firewalls work and we were told separate teams are created to permit separate access for differing clients.
We understand that there is just so much business to be had, but we can also imagine that some drugmakers - who are not represented by Cohn & Wolfe, in this instance - may feel uncomfortable or skeptical about the situation. What do you think?
Should Big PR Firms Rep Drugmakers & Medical Societies Simultaneously?
- No (63%, 71 Votes)
- Yes (37%, 42 Votes)
Total Voters: 113
photo thx to charlesboesel on flickr
12 Comments
Obviously thisse firewalls have worked so far. The bigger issue is that medical societies are smoking something when they call for an embargo of news while at the same time posting study results on their website.
The agencies live in a world which can change very quickly, and if there was even a sniff of playing both sides they would be fired immediately. No agency wants that. Admittedly there are some agencies - as in all industries - that play it close, but they would be dumb to either voluntarily promote a client's interests over the society's, or to favor one client over another at the same event. It's balancing act but ultimately to keep the business viable (the agency's, not a particular client's) they have to do the right thing and play it straight.
Also Ed, your poll question may warrant a bit of a change.
The question should not be: "Should Big PR Firms Rep Drugmakers & Medical Societies Simultaneously?"
but
"Should PR firms be allowed to simultaneously have as clients drugmakers and medical societies""
oh the healthcare, the pure evil :)
This is primarily an issue for the societies which have to choose how to best ensure that important peer reviewed science reaches health professionals and patients. One approach would be a full-time communications staff rather than an agency, but where that's not practical (e.g. don't have the resources to attract and retain top talent)an agency experienced in the science is a useful approach. I run an agency and find that our staff, especially the most junior, are very sensitive and alert to ethical issues.
PR = BS squared!
Correction
PR + (NEJM+JAMA) x (Big Pharma+Device) = BS cubed
Why do medical societies use biased sources when they don't need to? We subscribe to unbiased reporting sites like MedInfoNow.com that email us each week the newest medical information from Medline in various chosen fields. There is no organizational filter when you use sites like this one.
Charles: Because med societies do more than provide info that can be accessed online, such as at the website you list. And your presumption that agencise are biased sources is off target. Med societies need resources to function; publicity, communications beyond 'data', recruitment, meetings and events, membership activities, online presence, fund-raising etc. None of that requires bias on the part of the agency. I think the original question in this post was whether a PR agency representing clients at an event should also represent the organizers of the event, and if doing so represents a COI. My thoughts on that above.
Medical societies are not some altristic groups, they are there for the societies and their members and a big purpose is to "elevate their status"so they can negotiate better reimbursement rates for the procedures their members do.
The politics are ridiculous - Washington doesn't compare.
Agree with Paul. Medical Societies are by and large lobbying/advocacy organizations that advocate for their members. They advocate to make sure their members canget paid higher rates etc. They pay little or nothing for the PR support. That support is in essence subsidized by the PR firms' big pharma clients. It is just one more way that pharma companies funnel money to support the physician's business. Follow the money and the story would unfold. While it is something that sickens me, when it comes to medical conferences and data releases, I remain much more concerned about what does not get published that what does. While I am amazed at the effort companies will put into the release and distribution of "good" data -- press releases, abstacts, poster, publications, more publications, publication plans, investigator interviews and media events, I am saddened by the efforts to contain any bad or negative data. When you work in research and see a company (maybe even the company you work for!!!) hold on to negative data, it is extremely disheartening.
Here is a possible solution. All of the major medical conferences accept medical presentations and some are awarded podium presentations etc. For all of those presentations accepted, the Chief Medical Officer or Chief Research Officer of the company should have to sign a statement that all of the data generated for the products relevant to the field have been released and will be published, attaching a relevant list. It's not perfect and would of course be subject to abuse but it would move us towards increased transparency. I can assure you that negative data is still actively contained, e.g., shown in a late poster and never seen again.
So what should we do? Whats the next step to breaking it?