>> Normally, the conclusions of scientific papers are considered
>> debatable, and those debates take place in medical journals and at
>> scientific conferences -- not in courtrooms. But with the market for
>> prescription drugs becoming increasingly competitive, "companies
>> have to key on what are sometimes pretty trivial differences between
>> drugs in the same class, and . . . then become extremely aggressive
>> about defending the fact that those differences matter," said Dr. David
>> Naylor, dean of the medical school at the University of Toronto. He
>> said such threats by drug companies are part of a growing trend.
This story is disturbing indeed and has been evident in other domains of
research. Several years ago when I was working for a cancer charity (ACCV)
in Melbourne Australia a writ was served on our organization by a group
(the tobacco institute) representing major tobacco companies. The writ
related to a report that we had just released (indeed the tobacco industry
would not yet have had time to read the report) which evaluated health
warning labelling on tobacco products. The research was contracted by a
ministerial committee on drug strategy and reported a series of novel
studies and recommendations for a much stronger system of health warnings
(the recommendations were accepted in full by state governments across the
country though were subsequently somewhat watered down after intense
pressure from you-know-who). The tobacco institute had privately
commissioned a couple of academics (unfamiliar with the area) to attack the
research (we only accessed these years later when the reports turned up in
documents available from court cases in the US). The main criticisms was
that an organization aiming to reduce cancer incidence would be biased.
Given that the point of health warnings is to make people aware of health
risks, I would have thought such a bias was helpful.
Also worrying was that the writ allowed the tobacco institute to enforce a
"discovery" which meant that they could access any files relevant to the
research including emails, notes, and questionnaires carrying confidential
identifying information. It also wasted valuable charitable dollars in
legal costs, time and some of my stomach lining as we considered the
possibility of months wasted in court. It was clear to me then that the
legal system was being manipulated and used inappropriately to attack the
charity on pseudo-scientific grounds when genuine scientific debate is best
served, as said above, in peer-reviewed publications and at conferences.
The writ was eventually dropped, and may never have been intended
seriously, but the whole experience was quite sobering. Now working for an
HTA, I find the possibility of law suits based on potential commercial
threats equally distrubing. No matter how doomed to fail, these suits
inevitably cause damage in terms of wasted resources fighting them
(resources which may not be available for small organizations) as well as
personal threats. Perhaps ensuring rapid publication would help take the
research into the appropriate domain for peer review, rather than the
courts and newspapers.
cheers
Marita Broadstock
Research Fellow
NZHTA
New Zealand Health Technology Assessment Clearing House
Department of Public Health & General Practice
Christchurch School of Medicine
University of Otago
PO Box 4345
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Tel: ++ 0064 (3) 364 1480
Internal: 81480
Fax: ++ 0064 (3) 364 1152
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web Site: http:/nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|