How academic physicians are being used as live bait for journalists

Here’s something little known outside of the small circle of industry marketers, academic docs, PR flacks, and medical journalists: pharmaceutical and device companies (or their PR agencies) regularly offer to arrange interviews with well-known academic physicians to talk about new trials, drug approvals, and other items of obvious interest to the companies involved.

I receive these sort of invitations all the time. Here’s a redacted version of a recent email I received:

Hi Larry:

More than [VERY BIG NUMBER] Americans suffer from [COMMON DISEASE] and it is one of the few cardiovascular diseases on the rise. A new study, published online today by [FAMOUS JOURNAL], reveals there are gaps in the quality of [COMMON DISEASE] care provided to thousands of patients by cardiologists who don’t always follow guidelines for patient treatment.

As featured in [FAMOUS NEWSPAPER], the [BIG STUDY] is the largest [STUDY OF ITS TYPE] …

Would you be interested in learning more about the existing gaps in [COMMON DISEASE] patient care… Please let me know what you think and I could help arrange the following interviews:

Expert Interview:[FAMOUS CARDIOLOGIST], M.D., Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at [FAMOUS UNIVERSITY] and [FAMOUS STUDY NAME] study lead is available to provide a detailed analysis of the new study and the potential… to improve… patient care, which will ultimately reduce hospitalizations and save lives….



It almost seems too obvious to ask, but should independent academic physicians allow themselves to be dangled like live bait in front of journalists hungry for an easy interview? Of course, I’m not privy to the arrangements between the doctors and the companies, but it’s pretty clear that these doctors are either receiving substantial fees for their promotional work or the appearances are considered to be standard duties of investigators in company-sponsored trials. In either case, these “independent” doctors are reduced to cogs in the promotional machine.

Let me be clear: physicians should be free to comment on trials and other medical news events. But they shouldn’t be paid to do so by industry, and their comments should be based on the best interests of their patients, not the companies paying for their research.

In recent years I’ve made a point of refusing these offerings, but it’s surely the case that many journalists, on deadline and without much knowledge of a complex field, may find this sort of spoon-fed journalism quite enticing.

Here’s another example:


I wanted to offer one of the lead researchers on [DRUG A] as a resource as this [DRUG B]-rival seeks final FDA approval ….  [FAMOUS DOCTOR  NAME] has led several pivotal studies related to [DRUG A] that were presented at AHA Scientific Sessions and ESC Congresses.

He can offer a clear perspective on how [DRUG A] will transform the way cardiac patients are treated, provide details on potential side effects and risks and talk about how the new drug may affect [DRUG COMPANY]‘s financial performance in the near future. More details on[FAMOUS DOCTOR  NAME]‘s research is below.  Please call [PHONE NUMBER] or email me if you’d like to speak to [FAMOUS DOCTOR  NAME].



In addition to the same questions raised by the previous letter, the obvious question to ask here is whether physician leaders should be thinking about, much less discussing and pumping, the “financial performance” of the companies for whom they perform clinical trials? But perhaps it was always about business anyway.

Larry Husten is a writer and editor of

Submit a guest post and be heard on social media’s leading physician voice.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Sara Stein MD

    I would assume they’re financially connected. The question is why doesnt the industry or the expert ethically have to provide that information to the media?

    The answer lies in who is paying to pitch.

    Assuming it’s the industry company, I think the pitch should go like this….
    Our heart bitch famous Dr. Arrthymia is going to get $530,000 this year from us. In exchange he’s agreed to do an interview with you to tell you how fantastic our product is!

    Occasionally the expert may be paying for his/her own pitches. In which case the pitch should read like this…I am famous Dr. Narcissist and I am paying the publicist $5000 to email you that I am an expert and you should talk to me so that I can become more famous and attract more industry money.

    Lastly, someone may actually have a rolodex of experts who exist in the cloud and are happy to help. Those folks should be lauded, but not overused or they will cease giving out unbiased, expert opinions due to burn out.

    Good luck!

  • doctor1991

    It’s harder for the public to discern regarding pertinent disclosures. At any lecture, on any paper submitted, one has to disclose who their backers are. As we read, we consider their data and conclusions with their disclosures. This is more difficult in the media interview for the general public.

  • doc99

    Where can I get one of those pitchman jobs?

  • Robin Mayhall, APR

    As an accredited PR professional, I’d like to suggest that the so-called “PR people” you mention are not fit to be in the same room with the real public relations pros. Ethical, professional PR people like me don’t like the word “flack,” and we’d rather not be associated with the type of publicity hounds who might deserve such a demeaning title.

    Please know that the vast majority of educated and experienced PR pros, especially those of us who’ve taken the extra step to earn accreditation, practice with honesty and integrity.


Most Popular