Thursday, April 17, 2008
Merck Wrote Drug Studies for Doctors
This goes back to the topic of the power of using well respected names in a given field to increase the seeming validity of something. In this case, Merck, makers of the notorious drug Vioxx, is said to have "drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication". This tactic most likely made people more apt to trust the findings of the studies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Who is to blame in this situation? Merck or the doctors that agreed to do what was asked of them, knowing that it was illegitimate? When discussing audiences and science journalism, we often discussed the idea that there are always two sides (or more) to these stories, and I think that the Times did a poor job of presenting all aspects of this story. Of course, I don’t mean to make it seem like I am in support of what Merck did (and still does), but I think it is important to look at it from the view of the doctors, as well as more from those who used Vioxx and received the large settlement mentioned in the article.
The Vioxx incident is notorious. It is one of the main reasons Merck, a leading pharmaceutical company, has been suffering major financial loss. This controversial incident demonstrates how the general public recognizes and reacts to deceitful conduct. People place great trust in pharmaceutical companies because they develop drugs that should be “test-proven”. Even experimental drugs go through intense testing in order to get them to the market in the first place. Clearly, there are many pressures placed on the pharmaceutical industry to keep up with the rapid pace of disease recognition. However, there really is no excuse when a drug has not been tested adequately. Here is where the blurry line plays into effect. How do pharmaceutical companies distinguish when testing is complete and that the drug’s potential risks are (for the majority) identified. With external pressures pushing for certain drugs to go public faster, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies must balance satisfying their investors and the public while also meeting standard testing protocol. I never realized how crazy it is to consider how much trust we place in the hands of pharmaceutical industries. Apart from Merck, there is the recent story of a elderly woman who was given placebo pills instead of the actual drugs because a Chinese manufacturer was trying to profit from selling global customers “fake” pills. Both of these incidents show that we, as drug-consumers, must make it our responsibility to research the actual risks of the drugs and where our drugs are coming from for our own sake.
I believe the doctors really sold themselves by signing off on these studies. When making money and gaining status becomes more important that helping people, I think it's think to reevaluate your priorities. Melissa, I agree with your statement. The general public must make an effort to increase their science literacy so it can distinguish fraud and truth when it regards the health of itself, loved ones, or society. I wonder, though, it the outlets to becoming more literate in these kinds of issues aren't perhaps "blocked" by the interests of big pharmaceutical companies who do not release all testing/results/side effects.
Ghostwriting is all too common in the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortuately stories like these cast an negative shadow on the medical field. Doctors are in an interesting position. At one level many are researchers for the drug industry, yet they must also be health care providers. Thus they provide channels of information both to companies and to patients. If these responsibilities are abused, it becomes extremely clear how science communication distorted.
Post a Comment