The most damaging industry bias is not publication of positive results, but the industry's repeated failure to publish negative results, which suppresses potentially informative data by placing these unwelcome results in the file drawer, where they are not readily accessible to most clinicians and other investigators. Second, the conclusions of industry-supported and -controlled trials as presented in their published abstracts favor the sponsor's drugs 90% of the time (2). Nonetheless, in the aggregate, enough trials have been published to provide a reasonably complete view of the effects of antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia. Colleagues and I have independently reevaluated the results of these trials, blind to the identity of the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, and found that they do not show a statistically significant sponsorship bias (3). The publication of clinical trials, including those supported by industrial sponsors, enables each reader to assess the strategy and methodology of the study and then to examine the data in figures and tables to form an independent opinion of the soundness of the study, the robustness of the therapeutic effect, and the likelihood and seriousness of side effects. It is important that these papers be carefully refereed to be certain that each of these points is fully described and that the data are completely presented. A clinically important, well-conducted study, such as the one by Kane et al. in this issue, merits close reading by psychiatrists who treat patients with schizophrenia, as its data are a reality check on the more biased conclusions sometimes presented by industry-supported speakers.