Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications

School of Health Policy and Management, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Science and Engineering Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.52). 02/2011; 18(2):247-61. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9265-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of "seeding" trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it's not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    Social Studies of Science 08/2014; 44(4):489-517. DOI:10.1177/0306312714520864 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This empirical work attends to the tensions and contradictions medical students articulate when they discuss their objection to industry’s influence in medicine. Findings are based on 50 semi-structured interviews with medical students who are critical of the pharmaceutical industry’s influence in medical education in the United States and Canada. These students advocate evidence-based medicine (EBM) as one solution to the problems with industry influence in medicine; namely industry bias in medical research. This investigation is an effort to understand why EBM is posed as a solution to industry bias in light of the literature demonstrating the ways that what is considered ‘evidence-based’ is influenced by industry. Participants articulate a struggle to find the ‘best’ evidence in a context where industry interests are integral in the production of medical knowledge.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9623-z · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health regulators must carefully monitor the real-world safety and effectiveness of marketed vaccines through post-market monitoring in order to protect the public's health and promote those vaccines that best achieve public health goals. Yet, despite the fact that vaccines used in collective immunization programmes should be assessed in the context of a public health response, post-market effectiveness monitoring is often limited to assessing immunogenicity or limited programmatic features, rather than assessing effectiveness across popu-lations. We argue that post-market monitoring ought to be expanded in two ways to reflect a 'public health notion of post-market effectiveness', which incorporates normative public health considerations: (i) effectiveness monitoring should yield higher quality data and grant special attention to underrepresented and vulnerable populations; and (ii) the scope of effectiveness should be expanded to include a consideration of the various social factors that maximize (and minimize) a vaccine's effectiveness at the population level, paying particular attention to how immunization programmes impact related health gradients. We use the case of the human papillomavirus vaccine in Canada to elucidate how expanding post-market effectiveness monitoring is necessary to close the gap between clinical practice and public health, and to ensure that vaccines are effective in a morally relevant sense.
    Public Health Ethics 01/2015; DOI:10.1093/phe/phu049 · 1.27 Impact Factor


Available from
Jul 21, 2014