Dr. D.T. Zero and colleagues’ February JADA article, "The Remineralizing Effect of an Essential Oil Fluoride Mouthrinse in an Intraoral Caries Test," brought to mind something I had learned in dental school. I was told that reading a journal from the last article to the first was a good way to focus. Instead of reading an article like a novel, from cover to cover, it took some extra concentration to go backward instead.
Little did I realize how valuable that training would be now. However, the first thing I look at now, at the back of an article, is who wrote the article and with whom the author(s) is (are) affiliated. More and more, the authors are either employees of a health-care for-profit company, or are paid consultants to them. I then know not to take the article too seriously.
How can an article with a company connection possibly be unbiased? How many articles written with such a bias ever show a negative result in relation to a company product? How can you possibly get accurate peer review when the data thus become suspect? Why does the ADA have a journal that even prints these types of articles? How will a profession like ours maintain our future standing with the public when our literature becomes more and more tainted with drug/instrument company bias?
I understand that government and academic funding is getting harder to come by, and the scientific literature is becoming more "infected" with conflict-of-interest material. However, I feel sure that, unless we come to terms with literature being increasingly guided, funded and used to promote a particular product, like an essential oil fluoride mouthrinse, we’re going to have to redefine what a profession really is.
