Baxter, Biogen Idec & Elan Subjects of Broken Embargoes

I've blogged many times about the embargoes imposed by scientific groups and medical journals. If a media outlet breaks one -- something I have not done -- they risk losing the "privilege" of receiving the info ahead of time. And there's been a recent example of a prominent doctor who spoke too soon and has been barred for a while from publishing and reviewing studies in a peer-reviewed journal. Well, now at least one organization may take the enforcement a step further.

Reuters broke the story that three research analysts -- one at Merrill Lynch, another at Natexis Bleichroeder and the third at JPMorgan -- issued reports earlier this week with embargoed data from the upcoming American Academy of Neurology conference.

Two of the research notes to clients were about an experimental Alzheimer's drug from Baxter (BAX). And the other note focused on the MS drug Tysabri from Biogen Idec (BIIB) and Elan (ELN).

Reuters says the JPM and Natexis reports were retracted or recalled and that Merrill declined to comment.

But a spokesperson for the AAN says the recall or retraction may not be sufficient and that the organization could possibly try to take some kind of legal action. Here's their statement:

The American Academy of Neurology is disappointed that representatives of financial organizations have deliberately violated the Academy’s embargo policy. The violation has been referred to the Academy’s General Counsel who is currently exploring all options available to the Academy.

The embargo issue keeps cropping up for the organizations and journals that are trying to protect their "scientific integrity" and potentially headline-making content while servicing the companies that often sponsor the research (and the conferences) and in which Wall Street has a vested interest.

It will once again be put to the test over the next couple of months when the most widely-followed conference by doctors, scientists, investors, reporters and analysts--the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting--employs a new policy this year with some of its data to try to satisfy everyone.

Comments

[Donald E.L. Johnson]

Journals and conferences embargo papers in an effort to maximize their ability to win publicity for their organizations when the papers are released in the journals and at the meetings. They force researchers to agree to their embargoes as part of their terms when they accept the papers for publication or presentation.

Since the researchers' careers depend on their publishing records in peer review journals, they play the game. Also, researchers' grants often require that they publish in peer reviewed journals and that they make presentations at major conferences.

Thus, the intellectual integrity of medical researchers is compromised both by the organizations that fund their research and by the organizations that publish their findings. This is one reason there is so little trust in medical research, medical journals and the information that comes out of major medical conferences. It is so compromised by money and ambition, and it reflects badly on academia and the medial research community.

That analysts broke the embargoes is only natural. They had access to inside information that they couldn't publish, and that causes disclosure problems for the analysts and the drug companies involved with the SEC and shareholders.

Researchers should refuse to embargo their findings. Academia should find other ways of measuring and rewarding scholarly work, and securities analysts should continue to break embargoes. Medical journals and conferences have had their days and should go away.