Some very good points made as always. And, it raises other points. If industry funding (and Big Pharma is not the only industry) is a guarantee that studies are biased why aren't other forms of unbiased funding being made more available? Complaining about industry bias, but not doing anything to make other forms of funding available to researchers is rather pointless. And don't forget editorial bias – the Lancet and BMJ may have fewer retractions, but it doesn't shouldn't get them off the hook in other areas. Editorial bias also impacts the evidence base.
Thanks Kate for your response. Food for thought.
Is publication in a high impact journal a guarantee that the study is "true" and unbiased?
Nevertheless it is quite striking that the NEJM has the highest percentage of trials with sole industry support and the highest retraction index and refuses to be open about its income from reprints (in contrast to the BMJ and the Lancet).
In many other aspects top journals behave the same, that is true. I indirectly referred to editorial bias by saying that journals with high impact factors often go for trendy topics and positive results.
I didn't say that "Industry funding is a guarantee that studies are biased". I quoted Ioannidis who states that most studies are false (to a certain extent). Furthermore industry-funded trials are more biased (towards positive outcomes) than the non funded ones.
Pharma may not be the only funding industry, but it is the most important one. Completely condemning industry funding wouldn't make sense (in the first place because drug testing has to be done), but we could lessen the bias by being more open (also on the part of the journals).
However I do regret that it is so difficult for basic research to get funded. Even public funding agencies require research to be of direct relevance. And it mostly isn't in the short run.
Some really good points. Particularly about editorial bias. Ed Yong has also written about this in a May piece in Nature.