A Further Response from the BBC

After my last response to the BBC, I received the following reply. It is from the BBC's Health Editor. As I indicate below, I am unhappy with the editor's response so I am going to pursue this matter further with the Editorial Complaints Unit. The BBC's comments are in bold.

Regarding the citation at the foot of the piece (i.e. "Professor Gray has given lectures on behalf of a number of pharmaceutical companies"), I would argue that
stating Professor Gray lectures on behalf of pharmaceutical companies
clearly indicates he is paid on such occasions. I would therefore argue readers can properly evaluate the piece. Indeed that is why we mention his links.

I appreciate your opinion, but would have also appreciated hearing your argument that supports it. In the absence of hearing an argument from you as to why readers will somehow be able to infer from your citation that Richard Gray has been paid by pharmaceutical companies, let me state my argument as to why your citation does not convey this important information. Your citation does not state that pharmaceutical companies pay Richard Gray. All it states is that he lectures on their behalf. There is a clear difference. Admittedly your citation does indicate he is linked with these companies. But there are many kinds of links, some financial and some not. Clearly Richard Gray’s links are financial, but your citation neither indicates nor openly declares this. However, as you appear to think that by not stating Richard Gray’s financial links readers will still somehow know that they exist, I think it best that I take this matter forward to the Editorial Complaints Unit. Perhaps this more independent body can assess whether your position is reasonable, and if it is not, whether a change of position or policy is required.

So again let me reiterate my complaint: BBC Newsonline has knowingly allowed a person who receives consultancy fees and honoraria from many different pharmaceutical companies to extol the virtues of pharmaceutical products (in a biased and inaccurate way) upon its website. In effect, your writer extols products manufactured by companies from whom he enjoys regular payments. Therefore I argue, firstly, that Richard Gray’s potential conflict of interest should have been made clearer to the reader by your openly stating his financial links; and secondly, that because these links were not declared, his piece may at worst constitute a form of surreptitious pharmaceutical advertising that belies the BBC’s mission statement to offer impartial reporting free of commercial bias.

In the light of the above, I now respectfully ask you to be forthcoming in supplying me with the following information. As it is clear from Gray’s declaration in the Journal of Pharmacology (2008) that “he has received consultancy fees and honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies including Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly and Co., AstraZeneca, BristolMyers Squibb/Otsuka and Wyeth,” could you please check with him whether he has been paid by any pharmaceutical companies for any activities beyond lecturing on their behalf  (these activities may include speaking at and chairing meetings, being involved in medical/scientific studies, clinical trials or training services, participating at advisory board meetings, or participating in market research where such participation involves remuneration and/or travel). If Richard Gray has indeed engaged in any of these activities, he has been involved in more than lecturing. And if this is the case, there is yet another reason why your citation is misleading. When you check with him the precise nature of his activities, I am sure you will insist that he is completely transparent with you, as it is better that any claims made now are not unexpectedly revealed as false or misleading as we proceed later.

Dr Clare Gerada regularly appears on a range of BBC outlets
because of her position as head of the RCGP. We like to have a range of voices on the site.

I am not suggesting you shouldn’t have a range of voices ‘for or against’ antidepressants. By all means do so. Debate is right and proper, as I know you agree. All I am suggesting is that when someone who is paid by pharmaceutical companies argues the position ‘for’ antidepressants on your website, then you should either indicate their financial ties clearly and unambiguously or, failing that, you should simply avoid publishing their articles in the first place.

Thank you for citing the previous BBC article on the placebo effect of antidepressants in some cases. As this makes clear, we aim to report relevant developments in research.

Great – this is the BBC at its best, reporting relevant developments. But I do not accuse the BBC of ignoring relevant developments, but with not being open or vigilant enough with respect to the financial ties of those who report these developments or other relevant material. It is important these financial ties are made explicit so the reader can judge whether a conflict of interest should be taken in account when they evaluate the value and impartiality of the article.

With regard to Prof Gray's reference, as this is an opinion piece we would not ask for a more detailed citation, though I am happy to pursue that with him in this circumstance.

Richard Gray makes many claims that he either implies or directly states are rooted in academic research. At these points, the fact that this is an opinion piece in no way obviates his professional duty to report his research responsibly. But some of his claims fly in the face of existing research, and some seem to have no research backing at all. I am surprised that the BBC did not ask Richard Gray to provide the academic research in which he suggests his claims are rooted. I think it regrettable that you are only checking his references now, after my prompting and after his piece has now been published. The fact that you did not check his references at the appropriate time is especially troubling given that you knew before publishing his piece that he is a paid pharmaceutical consultant, and therefore may have a serious conflict of interest. Was this lack of vigilance just a one-off mistake?

With regard to the side effects of CBT versus medication, I would
disagree people would think they are equal.

Again I appreciate your opinion, but regret not hearing the argument upon which your opinion is based. I can only engage with arguments. My argument was that there is no evidence that CBT produces side effects. Now, as Richard Gray’s claim is to the contrary, could you please request that he send you the relevant research on which this claim is based? You will appreciate it will be helpful for me to see this reference along with the others you have said you will check.

I have forwarded your email on to the team which handles comments to see if they can shed light on why they were not added.
Thank you.