A cautionary tale | British Dental Journal

There are times when we can all be taken advantage of, and times when we all act in haste rather than think things through. I can think of countless examples from my own past. But an event

occurred recently that highlighted one area where dentists may unknowingly allow themselves to be involved in a slightly unethical practice, and I thought the example would act as a

cautionary tale that was worth telling. The story began at the _BDJ_ editorial office with the arrival of a letter intended for publication. The letter described a small research project

carried out in practice, and drew conclusions that favoured a named commercial product for treatment of a minor oral condition (I am deliberately being vague for obvious reasons). Apart from

the obvious recommendation of one commercial product the letter was initially very similar to many we publish about interesting findings in practice. On reading the letter my immediate

reaction was one of suspicion. The letter read more like an advertisement for the product than a genuine letter, and over the years I have developed a fairly sensitive 'radar' for

promotional material disguised as editorial. I was also suspicious of the science of the research, so I sent the letter to a referee. The referee's report I received confirmed my

suspicions, and clarified that the conclusions drawn from the research were not scientifically valid. My first thought was to try and contact the author of the letter to provide guidance on

how to rewrite the letter. I usually do this because I dislike simply rejecting letters (especially written by enthusiastic practitioners) and do try to help them towards publication. Having

made contact (by telephone) I explained my concerns to the author, and that was when the real story behind the origin of the letter began to unravel. On hearing my concerns the dentist

admitted that he had not written the letter, even though his name was given as the author. The letter had been written by the PRdivision of the company producing the product named in the

letter. The dentist had genuinely carried out the research (and had been paid to do it) but had not even thought about publicising it until it was suggested by the company who had asked the

dentist to write up the findings as a letter for publication. When the dentist had declined (on the grounds of being too busy) the company had offered to write the letter for him - and the

dentist had agreed. That was how the letter ended up at the _BDJ_ offices. There are a number of concerns here. Firstly, it is obviously most unwise to allow your name to be used as the

author of a letter you did not write, however innocuous. In this case though the dentist could have inadvertently created considerable problems for himself if the letter had been published.

For example, suppose other commercial companies in the field had objected to the findings, who knows where it could have led? > _...payment does not automatically mean unethical 

behaviour, but it > can be much harder to remain unbiased when money is involved._ The next concern is the potential conflict for anyone involved in providing advice when financial gain

enters the equation. This was summarised well in a previous _BDJ_ (_BDJ_ 1999; 187: 61–62) and remains a constant danger whenever a commercial company pays practitioners for testing out

materials. Of course payment does not automatically mean unethical behaviour, but it can be much harder to remain unbiased when money is involved. Thirdly, publication carries with it

certain responsibilities. People tend to believe the perceived authority of the printed word (even though we know it is often incorrect or biased) which means authors must be sure of their

facts and the effect their words may have on others. This is why the _BDJ_ has so many checks on everything we receive, and we still sometimes make mistakes. So what does all this tell us?

Firstly, to ensure that any publication (even a letter) has been written by the person claiming to write it. Secondly for practitioners to beware of unscrupulous companies using their name

and their credibility simply to promote products or services. Lastly, it may sound old-fashioned, but we must always strive to be true to ourselves and our profession. AUTHOR INFORMATION

AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Editor, Mike Grace Authors * Mike Grace View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Grace, M. A cautionary tale. _Br Dent J_ 195, 549 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810722 Download citation * Published: 22 November

2003 * Issue Date: 22 November 2003 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810722 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable

link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative