While much excitement has been generated surrounding evidence-based medicine, internal documents from the pharmaceutical industry suggest that the publicly available evidence base may not accurately represent the underlying data regarding its products. The industry and its associated medical communication firms state that publications in the medical literature primarily serve marketing interests. Suppression and spinning of negative data and ghostwriting have emerged as tools to help manage medical journal publications to best suit product sales, while disease mongering and market segmentation of (...) physicians are also used to efficiently maximize profits. We propose that while evidence-based medicine is a noble ideal, marketing-based medicine is the current reality. (shrink)

Academic inquiry, in devoting itself primarily to the pursuit of knowledge, is profoundly and damagingly irrational, in a wholesale, structural fashion, when judged from the standpoint of helping to promote human welfare. Judged from this standpoint, academic inquiry devoted to the pursuit of knowledge violates three of the four most elementary rules of rational problem-solving conceivable. Above all, it fails to give intellectual priority to the tasks of (1) articulating problems of living, including global problems, and (2) proposing and critically (...) assessing possible solutions – possible social actions. This gross, structural irrationality of academic inquiry stems from blunders of the 18th century French Enlightenment. The philosophes had the brilliant idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world, but in implementing this idea they made three disastrous blunders. They got the nature of the progress-achieving methods of science wrong; they failed to generalize these methods properly; and most disastrously, they applied these methods to acquiring knowledge about society, and not directly to solving social problems. These blunders are still inherent in academia today, with dire consequences for the state of the world. All this has been pointed out prominently many times since 1976, but has been ignored. (shrink)

Summary Points -/- Some 1500 documents revealed in litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals. Dozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements were used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms of menopausal hormone therapy (HT), and to cast raloxifene and other competing therapies in a negative light. Specifically, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth used ghostwritten articles to mitigate (...) the perceived risks of breast cancer associated with HT, to defend the unsupported cardiovascular “benefits” of HT, and to promote off-label, unproven uses of HT such as the prevention of dementia, Parkinson's disease, vision problems, and wrinkles. Given the growing evidence that ghostwriting has been used to promote HT and other highly promoted drugs, the medical profession must take steps to ensure that prescribers renounce participation in ghostwriting, and to ensure that unscrupulous relationships between industry and academia are avoided rather than courted. (shrink)

The best studies on the relationship between pharmaceutical corporations and medicine have recognized that it is an ambiguous one. Yet most scholarship has pursued a simpler, more saleable narrative in which pharma is a scheming villain and medicine its maidenly victim. In this article, I argue that such crude moral framing blunts understanding of the murky realities of medicine's relationship with pharma and, in consequence, holds back reform. My goal is to put matters right in respect to one critical area (...) of scholarly interest, the medical journal publication.Pharma relies on peer advocacy to sell its wares to prescribing doctors. This is an arrangement in which clinicians’ qualified colleagues, including “key opinion leaders,” are recruited by pharmaceutical corporations and marketing agencies to deliver commercially expedient content to their professional fellows. Precisely how this practice works in the setting of publications is not well understood because ethicists studying the problem have made too much of the narrative of corporate villainy and medical victimhood. Accordingly, criticism of industry publications has been preoccupied with the crudely dishonest practices of ghostwriting, ghost authorship, and “ghost management,” vices condemned as “dirty little secrets” perpetrated from “behind the scenes” with the connivance of academic “shills” or “guest authors,” in contempt of standards set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. This account is appealing, and yet it is wrong or, at the very least, seriously incomplete, with only limited relevance to the actualities of contemporary industry practices. In truth, many commercial publications are not developed in secret but fashioned within a culture of open collaboration, where academic authors make substantial, independent contributions; pharmaceutical companies are showcased rather than hidden; and medicine's editorial standards assist rather than impede the workings of commerce. (shrink)

Background: Biomedical research is influenced by many factors, including the involvement of stakeholder groups invested in research outcomes. Stakeholder involvement in research efforts raises questions of justice as stakeholders’ specific interests and motivations play a role in directing research resources that ultimately produce knowledge, shaping how different conditions (and affected individuals) are understood and treated by society. This issue is highly relevant to child psychiatry research where diagnostic criteria and treatment strategies are often controversial. Biological similarities and stakeholder differences between (...) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) provide an opportunity to explore this issue by comparing research foci and stakeholder involvement in these conditions. Methods: A subset of ADHD and ASD research articles published between 1970 and 2010 were randomly selected from the PubMed database and coded for research focus, funding source(s), and author-reported conflicts of interest (COIs). Chi-squared analyses were performed to identify differences between and within ADHD and ASD research across time. Results: The proportion of ADHD research dedicated to basic, description, and treatment research was roughly similar and remained stable over time, while ASD research showed a significant increase in basic research over the past decade. Government was the primary research funder for both conditions, but for-profit funders were a notable presence in ADHD research, while joint funding efforts between nonprofit and government funders were a notable presence in ASD research. Lastly, COIs were noted more frequently in ADHD than in ASD research. Conclusions: Our study shows significant differences in research foci and funding sources between the conditions, and identifies the specific involvement of for-profit and nonprofit groups in ADHD and ASD, respectively. Our findings highlight the relationship between stakeholders outside the research community and research trajectories and suggest that examinations of these relationships must be included in broader considerations of biomedical research ethics. (shrink)