On 2015 Nov 18, Yuri Lazebnik commented:

Editorial or Advertorial?

An apparently objective article that is sponsored by a manufacturer to promote its products is known in the advertisement business as an advertorial, a portmanteau of ‘advertisement’ and ‘editorial’. We are concerned that this editorial has too many similarities with an advertorial, giving an impression that this genre of advertisement has found home in a venerated scientific journal.

Indeed, the editorial, which introduces the Nature Insight on precision medicine, is sponsored by AstraZeneca, a company whose financial interest depends on implementing the concept of precision medicine. As the company explains: “[AZ] is proud to support a new Insight by Nature on precision medicine. Currently, 80% of our pipeline takes a precision medicine, or personalized healthcare approach.” https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-company/media-centre/articles/astrazeneca-is-proud-to-support-a-new-insight-by-nature-on-precision-medicine-14102015.html. In other words, promoting precision medicine would promote AstraZeneca’s future products. As would also be expected from an advertorial, the editorial overlooks the voices of skeptics (1,2). Likewise, the papers commissioned by the Editor for the Insight are overwhelmingly optimistic. Although each acknowledges the enormous changes in health care that would be required for implementing precision medicine, none considers that these changes may be infeasible, unaffordable, and distract us from finding inexpensive practical alternatives. The appearance of bias is not helped by finding that three of the four articles declare competing financial interests.

Although the Nature editorial has acknowledged AstraZeneca sponsorship, this disclaimer fails to dispel the impression that the editorial promotes the products of its sponsor and can lead one to suggest that one of the most revered of scientific journals has abandoned its role as an unbiased moderator. Even a hint of advertorial practices would hardly be beneficial to anyone at a time when the influence of industry on the integrity of research and clinical practices is increasingly becoming a public concern.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, Caywood Professor of Anesthesiology,Distinguished Mayo Investigator, Mayo Clinic

Nigel Paneth, MD, MPH, University Distinguished Professor, Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Pediatrics & Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University

Yuri Lazebnik, PhD, Lerna Consulting, LLC

The authors thank Professors Ana Soto, Carlos Sonnenschein, Sandro Galea, Richard Cooper, and Arturo Casadevall for their helpful comments

REFERENCES

1. Bayer, R. & Galea, S. Public Health in the Precision-Medicine Era. The New England Journal of Medicine 373, 499-501 (2015), doi:10.1056/NEJMp1506241.

2. Joyner, M. J. & Paneth, N. Seven Questions for Personalized Medicine. JAMA 314, 999-1000, (2015) doi:10.1001/jama.2015.7725 .

On 2015 Nov 18, Yuri Lazebnik commented:

Editorial or Advertorial?

An apparently objective article that is sponsored by a manufacturer to promote its products is known in the advertisement business as an advertorial, a portmanteau of ‘advertisement’ and ‘editorial’. We are concerned that this editorial has too many similarities with an advertorial, giving an impression that this genre of advertisement has found home in a venerated scientific journal.

Indeed, the editorial, which introduces the Nature Insight on precision medicine, is sponsored by AstraZeneca, a company whose financial interest depends on implementing the concept of precision medicine. As the company explains: “[AZ] is proud to support a new Insight by Nature on precision medicine. Currently, 80% of our pipeline takes a precision medicine, or personalized healthcare approach.” https://www.astrazeneca.com/our-company/media-centre/articles/astrazeneca-is-proud-to-support-a-new-insight-by-nature-on-precision-medicine-14102015.html. In other words, promoting precision medicine would promote AstraZeneca’s future products. As would also be expected from an advertorial, the editorial overlooks the voices of skeptics (1,2). Likewise, the papers commissioned by the Editor for the Insight are overwhelmingly optimistic. Although each acknowledges the enormous changes in health care that would be required for implementing precision medicine, none considers that these changes may be infeasible, unaffordable, and distract us from finding inexpensive practical alternatives. The appearance of bias is not helped by finding that three of the four articles declare competing financial interests.

Although the Nature editorial has acknowledged AstraZeneca sponsorship, this disclaimer fails to dispel the impression that the editorial promotes the products of its sponsor and can lead one to suggest that one of the most revered of scientific journals has abandoned its role as an unbiased moderator. Even a hint of advertorial practices would hardly be beneficial to anyone at a time when the influence of industry on the integrity of research and clinical practices is increasingly becoming a public concern.

Michael J. Joyner, MD, Caywood Professor of Anesthesiology,Distinguished Mayo Investigator, Mayo Clinic

Nigel Paneth, MD, MPH, University Distinguished Professor, Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Pediatrics & Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University

Yuri Lazebnik, PhD, Lerna Consulting, LLC

The authors thank Professors Ana Soto, Carlos Sonnenschein, Sandro Galea, Richard Cooper, and Arturo Casadevall for their helpful comments

REFERENCES

1. Bayer, R. & Galea, S. Public Health in the Precision-Medicine Era. The New England Journal of Medicine 373, 499-501 (2015), doi:10.1056/NEJMp1506241.

2. Joyner, M. J. & Paneth, N. Seven Questions for Personalized Medicine. JAMA 314, 999-1000, (2015) doi:10.1001/jama.2015.7725 .