Neoliberal pharmaceutical science and the Chicago School of Economics

Abstract

In recent years, science studies scholars have critically examined several methods used by the pharmaceutical industry to exert control over knowledge about drugs. Complementary literatures on 'medical neoliberalism' and 'neoliberal science' draw attention to the economic ideas justifying such methods of organizing knowledge, and in so doing suggest that neoliberal thinkers may play an important role in developing them. As yet, the nature of this role remains unexplored. Relying on heretofore-unexamined archival evidence, this article establishes a direct link between the Chicago School of Economics and the mobilization of the pharmaceutical industry in the 1970s. It argues that economists affiliated with the Chicago School of Economics sought to influence pharmaceutical policy and science and constructed institutions to do so. These institutions--most notably the Center for the Study of Drug Development--remain highly influential. This article contributes to a historical understanding of how neoliberal ideas came to assume prominence in pharmaceutical policy, the management of science, and scientific practice.

The poison in the cure: Neoliberalism and contemporary movements in mental health

“…Papers in agnotology have examined the tobacco industry's campaign against research on the effects of smoking on health, the denial of global warming (Bedford, 2010;Proctor & Schiebinger, 2008), and the production of ignorance perpetuated by the pharmaceutical industry (Pinto, 2015). What this work illuminates is that the fundamental epistemic goal of science-the search for knowledge-has been systematically hijacked by commercial interests (see e.g., Mirowski & Van Horn, 2005;Nik-Khah, 2014;Pinto, 2017). Nowhere is this more evident than in the medical field, particularly within psychiatry.…”

The will of Congress? Permissive regulation and the strategic use of labeling for the anti-influenza drug Relenza

“…In the 1990s, this shift towards more permissive regulation occurred against a political backdrop in the US in which the Republican party had adopted an increasingly anti-government and deregulatory rhetoric (Davis and Abraham, 2013; Hacker and Pierson, 2014; Vogel, 2012). When the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, party politicians claimed this was a signal that Americans expected Congress to ‘tame’ the ‘regulatory beast’ and to stamp out government interference with ‘decisions that are best left to the individual’ (Vogel, 2012: 228), which we understand as part of a neoliberal position (Nik-Khah, 2014).…”

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

“…In a programmatic volume, the science historian, Robert Proctor (: 3), defines agnotologists' goals as: “we need to think about the conscious, unconscious, and structural production of ignorance, its diverse causes and conformations, whether brought about by neglect, forgetfulness, myopia, extinction, secrecy or suppression. The point is to question the naturalness of ignorance, its causes and its distribution.” Empirical research on agnotology has focused on the so‐called “manufacture of doubt” in different areas of science: climate change (Oreskes & Conway, ), cancer (Proctor, ), public health (Michaels, ; Nik‐Khah, ), and economics (Mirowski & Nik‐Khah, ). The historian of science Peter Galison qualifies this form of scientific scepticism as “a doubt raised for its own sake, doubt as a tool of political intervention, doubt marshaled to thwart scientific consensus, block political action, and protect quite specific interests” (: 212).…”

“…The point is to question the naturalness of ignorance, its causes and its distribution." Empirical research on agnotology has focused on the so-called "manufacture of doubt" in different areas of science: climate change (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), cancer (Proctor, 1995), public health (Michaels, 2008;Nik-Khah, 2014), and economics (Mirowski & Nik-Khah, 2013). The historian of science Peter Galison qualifies this form of scientific scepticism as "a doubt raised for its own sake, doubt as a tool of political intervention, doubt marshaled to thwart scientific consensus, block political action, and protect quite specific interests" (2008: 212).…”