Here's just a little, but good, example of a journalist disclosing drug company funding in a news story.
Tara Parker-Pope of the Wall Street Journal had a column on the drug Herceptin for women with an aggressive form of breast cancer.
In it, she was careful to disclose which sources had drug company funding and which did not. She quotes a Boston researcher saying this "may very well be the first subtype of breast cancer where we look back and say, 'We cured this type of breast cancer.' " Then she added that he "received funding from Herceptin marketer Genentech."
Later in the column, she quotes a Mayo Clinic investigator saying, "We are changing the natural history of breast cancer by using Herceptin." She added that the researcher "led one of the studies, but has no financial ties to Genentech."
She also emphasized downsides, stating that the study had an average followup of just 18 months -- "typically breast cancer studies report results after five years." There were other clear caveats in the story.
THAT's the way studies should be reported. The financial disclosure may not clarify anything for readers. But at least they know about possible conflicts of interest and can judge for themselves. And the unknowns, the uncertainties, weren't hidden or excluded.
We need more of that kind of health journalism.