How Basic Scientists Help the Pharmaceutical Industry Market Drugs

Fugh‐Berman, Adriane

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001716

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Personal communication undisclosed for protection of researcher). Other acts of misconduct take place where basic researchers collude with the pharmaceutical industry to market drugs by accepting 'gifts' in various forms, in return for favours such as acknowledging the sponsor in their reports, providing pre-publication reviews of articles traceable to the gift, ghost-writing and ghost-management of publications, reporting unwarranted efficacy of drugs, under-reporting unfavourable results and selectively presenting posters and abstracts at scientific meetings [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research

Green¹

2015

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe public and healthcare workers have a high expectation of animal research which they perceive as necessary to predict the safety and efficacy of drugs before testing in clinical trials. However, the expectation is not always realised and there is evidence that the research often fails to stand up to scientific scrutiny and its 'predictive value' is either weak or absent.DiscussionProblems with the use of animals as models of humans arise from a variety of biases and systemic failures including: 1) bias and poor practice in research methodology and data analysis; 2) lack of transparency in scientific assessment and regulation of the research; 3) long-term denial of weaknesses in cross-species translation; 4) profit-driven motives overriding patient interests; 5) lack of accountability of expenditure on animal research; 6) reductionist-materialism in science which tends to dictate scientific inquiry and control the direction of funding in biomedical research.SummaryBias in animal research needs to be addressed before medical research and healthcare decision-making can be more evidence-based. Research funding may be misdirected on studying 'disease mechanisms' in animals that cannot be replicated outside tightly controlled laboratory conditions, and without sufficient critical evaluation animal research may divert attention away from avenues of research that hold promise for human health. The potential for harm to patients and trial volunteers from reliance on biased animal data1 requires measures to improve its conduct, regulation and analysis. This article draws attention to a few of the many forms of bias in animal research that have come to light in the last decade and offers a strategy incorporating ten recommendations stated at the end of each section on bias. The proposals need development through open debate and subsequent rigorous implementation so that reviewers may determine the value of animal research to human health. The 10Rs + are protected by a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License and therefore may be 'shared, remixed or built on, even commercially, so long as attributed by giving appropriate credit with a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.’Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0043-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research

Green¹

2015

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scientists should not shirk their responsibility for advocating for public, accountable government-funded support for the scientific enterprise, lest their credibility be challenged (177,262). Global health scientists, joining with colleagues calling for action on climate change (e.g.…”

Section: Philanthrocapitalism and The Global Health Agenda: What Rolementioning

confidence: 99%

Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda

Birn¹

2014

HYP

164

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has emerged as this era's most renowned, and arguably its most influential, global health player. A century ago, the Rockefeller Foundation-likewise founded by the richest, most ruthless and innovative capitalist of his day-was an even more powerful international health actor. This article reflects critically on the roots, exigencies, and reach of global health philanthropy, comparing the goals, paradigms, principles, modus operandi, and agenda-setting roles of the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations in their historical contexts. It proposes that the Rockefeller Foundation's early 20th century initiatives had a greater bearing on international health when the field was wide open-in a world order characterized by forceful European and ascendant U.S. imperialism-than do the Gates Foundation's current global health efforts amidst neoliberal globalization and fading U.S. hegemony. It concludes that the Gates Foundation's pervasive influence is nonetheless of grave concern both to democratic global health governance and to scientific independence-and urges scientists to play a role in contesting and identifying alternatives to global health philanthrocapitalism. D.C. under the aegis of the U.S. Public Health Service (20). In their early decades, both the OIHP and PASB remained focused on establishing and monitoring sanitary conventions and collecting disease statistics. Another early agency was the International Committee of the Red Cross, founded in Geneva in 1863 to provide aid to the victims of war. These organizations joined longstanding intra-imperial health activities carried out by colonial administrators, military forces, and missionaries, all with the aim of protecting troops, high-yielding colonial production and trade, and colonial settlers, at the same time as staving off unrest among the colonized (21). Enter the Rockefeller Foundation Just as these institutions were being created, a new player emerged on the scene, one that would go beyond political and economic self-interest, war relief, and information exchange to fundamentally transform the nascent international health field. The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) was established in 1913 by oil mogul-cum-philanthropist John D. Rockefeller-to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.‖ Not only did the RF virtually single-handedly popularize the concept of international health, it was the major influence upon the field's 20th century agenda, approaches, and actions (22,23). Rockefeller's efforts were part of a new American movement-scientific philanthropy.‖ Launched by Scottish-born, rags-to-riches steel magnate Andrew Carnegie in an 1889 essay,-The Gospel of Wealth,‖ published in The North American Review, this approach called for the wealthy to channel their fortunes to the societal good by supporting systematic social investments rather than haphazard forms of charity (24-26). The renowned Carnegie left a legacy of thousands of public libraries and bathhouses along with donations to higher ed...

show abstract

“…In that sense, one of the possibilities to improve the quality of the coverage on new drug candidates is to widen the view to other actors and points of view, in addition to the scientists and their institutions. Drug research and production involves ethical and economic issues, expressed in conflicts of interest between doctors and researchers -who rely on pharmaceutical companies to fund their research -and abuses in clinical trials when multinational companies do not employ in poor or developing countries the same procedures adopted in their home countries [Fugh-Berman, 2013;Palma and Vilaça, 2012].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimism in a sea of uncertainties: the journalistic coverage on the research of new medicines in Brazil

Fioravanti¹,

Fioravanti²

2018

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper deals with the journalistic coverage of biologically active compounds presented as promising drugs in Brazil. The sample consists of 214 journalistic stories on 40 compounds published in two daily newspapers and a monthly science magazine from January 1990 to December 2016. After 27 years, although journalists and scientists had claimed that all compounds would become drugs in a few years, only two completed the evaluation tests and were approved for commercialisation. The paper provides a series of strategies to build a more analytical view on drug research and development.

show abstract

How Basic Scientists Help the Pharmaceutical Industry Market Drugs

Abstract: Basic science research is not immune to the influence of pharmaceutical and industrial partners. This Perspective by Adriane Fugh-Bermann explains why scientists should be aware of the potential competing interests posed by practices such as selective publication and ghost-writing.

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research

Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research

Philanthrocapitalism, past and present: The Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the setting(s) of the international/global health agenda

Optimism in a sea of uncertainties: the journalistic coverage on the research of new medicines in Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About