Aa
How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science
The pharmaceutical industry funnels money to prominent scientists who are doing research that affects its products--and nobody can stop it
When Robert Lindsay chose to become a medical researcher in the early 1970s, he did not do it for the money. His field—the effect of hormones on bone—was a backwater. It was also a perfect opportunity for a young researcher to make his mark and, he hoped, help millions of people who suffered from the bone disease osteoporosis. As the body ages, sometimes bones lose the ability to rebuild themselves fast enough to keep pace with the normal process of deterioration, and the skeleton weakens. Neither Lindsay nor anyone else understood much about why this happened, but there was reason to think that hormones might play a role. Some women develop osteoporosis shortly after menopause, when their hormone levels drop sharply, perhaps upsetting that balance between bone creation and destruction. If so, Lindsay reasoned, replacing the hormones with a pill might halt or even reverse the progress of the disease. From a tiny, underfunded clinic in Glasgow, Scotland, he set up one of the first clinical trials of estrogen replacement therapy for bone loss in postmenopausal women. Lindsay's star was rising.
His next project had big commercial implications and got the attention of the drug industry. Having moved to Helen Hayes Hospital, a rehabilitation center north of New York City, in 1984 he published work that established the minimum effective dosage of an antiosteoporosis estrogen drug called Premarin. Because the findings suggested that fighting osteoporosis was tantamount to encouraging millions of women to use the drug, it made Lindsay an important person in the eyes of the drug's manufacturer, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories. Indeed, the company gave him a role as an author of its informational video Osteoporosis: A Preventable Tragedy.
By the mid-1990s, when Wyeth got caught in a patent battle over Premarin, Lindsay was a staunch Wyeth ally. He came out against approval of a generic version of the drug that would have cut into sales even though the generic form would have made it easier for osteoporosis patients to receive therapy. His reasoning was that such versions might not be precisely equivalent to the brand-name drug, a fact that can be true with certain drugs but was also a position that happened to echo the company line. “All we're asking is that we don't approve something now and regret it” later, he told the Associated Press in 1995. Lindsay's close relationship with Wyeth and other drug companies carried on for decades, in ways that were sometimes hidden. He started allowing Wyeth to draft research articles and began taking tens of thousands of dollars from pharmaceutical interests that stood to gain from his research.
The scandal is not what Lindsay did so much as that his case is typical. In the past few years the pharmaceutical industry has come up with many ways to funnel large sums of money—enough sometimes to put a child through college—into the pockets of independent medical researchers who are doing work that bears, directly or indirectly, on the drugs these firms are making and marketing. The problem is not just with the drug companies and the researchers but with the whole system—the granting institutions, the research labs, the journals, the professional societies, and so forth. No one is providing the checks and balances necessary to avoid conflicts. Instead organizations seem to shift responsibility from one to the other, leaving gaps in enforcement that researchers and drug companies navigate with ease, and then shroud their deliberations in secrecy.
“There isn't a single sector of academic medicine, academic research or medical education in which industry relationships are not a ubiquitous factor,” says sociologist Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Those relationships are not all bad. After all, without the help of the pharmaceutical industry, medical researchers would not be able to turn their ideas into new drugs. Yet at the same time, Campbell argues, some of these liaisons co-opt scientists into helping sell pharmaceuticals rather than generating new knowledge.
cont. @
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-drug-company-money-undermining-science
When Robert Lindsay chose to become a medical researcher in the early 1970s, he did not do it for the money. His field—the effect of hormones on bone—was a backwater. It was also a perfect opportunity for a young researcher to make his mark and, he hoped, help millions of people who suffered from the bone disease osteoporosis. As the body ages, sometimes bones lose the ability to rebuild themselves fast enough to keep pace with the normal process of deterioration, and the skeleton weakens. Neither Lindsay nor anyone else understood much about why this happened, but there was reason to think that hormones might play a role. Some women develop osteoporosis shortly after menopause, when their hormone levels drop sharply, perhaps upsetting that balance between bone creation and destruction. If so, Lindsay reasoned, replacing the hormones with a pill might halt or even reverse the progress of the disease. From a tiny, underfunded clinic in Glasgow, Scotland, he set up one of the first clinical trials of estrogen replacement therapy for bone loss in postmenopausal women. Lindsay's star was rising.
His next project had big commercial implications and got the attention of the drug industry. Having moved to Helen Hayes Hospital, a rehabilitation center north of New York City, in 1984 he published work that established the minimum effective dosage of an antiosteoporosis estrogen drug called Premarin. Because the findings suggested that fighting osteoporosis was tantamount to encouraging millions of women to use the drug, it made Lindsay an important person in the eyes of the drug's manufacturer, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories. Indeed, the company gave him a role as an author of its informational video Osteoporosis: A Preventable Tragedy.
By the mid-1990s, when Wyeth got caught in a patent battle over Premarin, Lindsay was a staunch Wyeth ally. He came out against approval of a generic version of the drug that would have cut into sales even though the generic form would have made it easier for osteoporosis patients to receive therapy. His reasoning was that such versions might not be precisely equivalent to the brand-name drug, a fact that can be true with certain drugs but was also a position that happened to echo the company line. “All we're asking is that we don't approve something now and regret it” later, he told the Associated Press in 1995. Lindsay's close relationship with Wyeth and other drug companies carried on for decades, in ways that were sometimes hidden. He started allowing Wyeth to draft research articles and began taking tens of thousands of dollars from pharmaceutical interests that stood to gain from his research.
The scandal is not what Lindsay did so much as that his case is typical. In the past few years the pharmaceutical industry has come up with many ways to funnel large sums of money—enough sometimes to put a child through college—into the pockets of independent medical researchers who are doing work that bears, directly or indirectly, on the drugs these firms are making and marketing. The problem is not just with the drug companies and the researchers but with the whole system—the granting institutions, the research labs, the journals, the professional societies, and so forth. No one is providing the checks and balances necessary to avoid conflicts. Instead organizations seem to shift responsibility from one to the other, leaving gaps in enforcement that researchers and drug companies navigate with ease, and then shroud their deliberations in secrecy.
“There isn't a single sector of academic medicine, academic research or medical education in which industry relationships are not a ubiquitous factor,” says sociologist Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Those relationships are not all bad. After all, without the help of the pharmaceutical industry, medical researchers would not be able to turn their ideas into new drugs. Yet at the same time, Campbell argues, some of these liaisons co-opt scientists into helping sell pharmaceuticals rather than generating new knowledge.
cont. @
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-drug-company-money-undermining-science
Hmmm. IDK what to think.....
I agree, SM.
The pharmaceutical business is a huge money maker...that's undeniable. There is a lot of hype and conspiracy theories when it comes to big Pharma. Like the idea that they're sitting on all kinds of cures...so they can continue to make money treating a disease. That's a bunch of baloney.
Yes, they have their own special interest groups, and everyone is in everyone else's pockets...just like politicians, but the work they do is good..and I also don't see how this is a "science" issue. I see it more as a legal issue also. I'm sure, in most instances, the reasons behind what they do is driven by profit...but that doesn't negate the positive outcomes.
There isn't a single sector of academic medicine, academic research or medical education in which industry relationships are not a ubiquitous factor,” says sociologist Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Those relationships are not all bad. After all, without the help of the pharmaceutical industry, medical researchers would not be able to turn their ideas into new drugs. Yet at the same time, Campbell argues, some of these liaisons co-opt scientists into helping sell pharmaceuticals rather than generating new knowledge.
I think this quote sums it up nicely. I am sure that sometimes, these companies are more concerned about their own interests...ie, making money...but overall, the work they do is good. I don't think they're as "evil" as they're made out to be.
The pharmaceutical industry has been directly responsible, with it's relationships with researchers, for a lot of amazing advancements. Just as one example, the advancement of HIV treatment and testing. In a relatively short time since the beginning of this pandemic, HUGE strides have been made in drastically increasing the life expectancy for those infected with HIV. It isn't the death sentence it once was. Also, testing for HIV has become far more advanced, allowing for earlier detection...which in turn, leads to less people infected. The pharmaceutical companies played a HUGE role in those improvements and advancements.
I think there's absolutely some truth in the article, but I think it's painted with an awfully broad brush.
The pharmaceutical business is a huge money maker...that's undeniable. There is a lot of hype and conspiracy theories when it comes to big Pharma. Like the idea that they're sitting on all kinds of cures...so they can continue to make money treating a disease. That's a bunch of baloney.
Yes, they have their own special interest groups, and everyone is in everyone else's pockets...just like politicians, but the work they do is good..and I also don't see how this is a "science" issue. I see it more as a legal issue also. I'm sure, in most instances, the reasons behind what they do is driven by profit...but that doesn't negate the positive outcomes.
There isn't a single sector of academic medicine, academic research or medical education in which industry relationships are not a ubiquitous factor,” says sociologist Eric Campbell, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Those relationships are not all bad. After all, without the help of the pharmaceutical industry, medical researchers would not be able to turn their ideas into new drugs. Yet at the same time, Campbell argues, some of these liaisons co-opt scientists into helping sell pharmaceuticals rather than generating new knowledge.
I think this quote sums it up nicely. I am sure that sometimes, these companies are more concerned about their own interests...ie, making money...but overall, the work they do is good. I don't think they're as "evil" as they're made out to be.
The pharmaceutical industry has been directly responsible, with it's relationships with researchers, for a lot of amazing advancements. Just as one example, the advancement of HIV treatment and testing. In a relatively short time since the beginning of this pandemic, HUGE strides have been made in drastically increasing the life expectancy for those infected with HIV. It isn't the death sentence it once was. Also, testing for HIV has become far more advanced, allowing for earlier detection...which in turn, leads to less people infected. The pharmaceutical companies played a HUGE role in those improvements and advancements.
I think there's absolutely some truth in the article, but I think it's painted with an awfully broad brush.
I have mixed feelings about this. How is this cutting into science? It instead is cutting into profits that those who didn't do the research want to make (make no doubt about it, there is a TON of cash in the generic drug industry---- they put in no money to do the research, the studies, etc, so they make a very high profit margin on the product).
This is a legal issue with patenting and not about science. And public sector scientists also do the same thing by patenting their work.
This is a legal issue with patenting and not about science. And public sector scientists also do the same thing by patenting their work.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
