To me, the authors' response Reference Cook, Dein, Powell and Eagger1 to Peter Bruggen's letter Reference Bruggen2 reflects a lack of understanding of the issue of bias in regard to declarations of interest. Surely, the most important reason for declarations of interest is to allow editors and readers to judge whether bias might have crept into a publication. Although the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, through financial relationships with clinicians or academics, is undoubtedly a source of bias, it is not the only source of bias that should be declared. Why should a cognitive-behavioural therapy-trained researcher or anyone with a particular leaning not declare that interest? It is not complicated to state succinctly that there is a potential bias. It is simple to do and aids transparency. Let the readers decide! The authors' distinction between ‘conflicts of interest’ and ‘perspectives of interest’ is splitting hairs and appears pedantic and defensive. Declare, declare!
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Cowen, Philip J.
2011.
Has psychopharmacology got a future?.
British Journal of Psychiatry,
Vol. 198,
Issue. 5,
p.
333.
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.