Medical ethics of various pharmaceutical companies have come
into question regarding their practices of providing financial incentives to
scientists doing research involving their products.. We have heard of the “blue
wall of silence” when referring to the police department’s turning a blind eye
to departmental infractions but it was surprising to see a similar indifference
to standard codes of ethics in the scientific industry. When watching televised
advertisements of various drugs new to the market, the tremendous side effects
that are possible with each dose come as no surprise. It makes one wonder if
these side effects are a byproduct of researchers, scientists and the pharmaceutical
companies pushing a drug through to market without the necessary testing required.
More testing would cause a delay to the consumer market but in the long run,
would eliminate some of the detrimental risks involved with each dose.
Mechanisms put into place to sanction any unethical practices and dealings
between scientists and pharmaceutical companies are either delving into the
same pool of impropriety that they are supposed to monitor, are oblivious to
the ill dealings, or are rendered powerless to act because the practices fall
beyond the scope of their responsibilities.
I was both disappointed and astonished to read that the IRB’s main
responsibility is to handle cases of missing paperwork. The exchanging of
monies is not in the scope of their jurisdiction; incredible! What recourse
could one take to rectify unethical practice between scientists and ‘Big
Pharma” should it come to their attention? What can one do when realizing that
financial compensation to a research scientist by one of these companies could
pose a potential threat to consumers? These are complex questions being that
those in place to monitor and sanction such actions are themselves a part of
the problem, i.e. Robert Lindsay. Another instance of mishandling involving
research scientists and pharmaceutical companies is “ghost writing” of
scientific journal articles. Research scientists are putting their names and
reputations to journal articles written and designed by writing firms hired by
pharmaceutical companies. This appears to be a slippery slope because
guidelines for such practices are so convoluted that it is almost impossible to
govern the authorship criteria. There are cases where paid writers who authored
first drafts of journal articles with prominent scientist’s names in the
bylines were deemed acceptable because the paid writers were thanked in the
acknowledgements for their “editorial assistance.” (www.healthnewsreview.org/2013/01/ghostwriting-part-3-psych-drug-paxil-and
-conclusion/). One case is when Wyeth-Ayerst created “fen-phen” diet drug,
Redux. Wyeth-Ayerst farmed out nine journal article requests to an outside firm
called Excerpta Medica. Excerpta in turn hired doctors to review and sign their
names to the articles on Redux (no research or experiments for the product were
done by these doctors). The doctors then submitted the articles to journals
with no mention of Wyeth being their benefactor although Excerpta claims to
have told the doctors about Wyeth’s involvement. The doctors claim they signed
and submitted the papers thinking Excerpta was an independent researcher. (www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-327012.html)
 |
| http://media.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2009/November/11.28swineflu.jpg |
Though it may be true that the doctors were not aware of
direct pharmaceutical ties to the articles they signed and submitted, one
cannot deny the breach in ethics involved with signing and submitting a
research article when you have no actual research involvement in its making.
Why would you trust the findings of an “independent researcher” who you had not
heard of before reviewing their paper? Also there lies the fact that ignorance
is a poor excuse for laying your reputation and name on the line for a product
that later turns out to be faulty. We live in an electronic age, did no doctor
think to Google the name Excerpta to find out just who they were dealing with?
Many drugs; Redux, Paxil (www.healthnewsreview.org/2013/01/ghostwriting-part-3-psych-drug-paxil-and
-conclusion/), NuvaRing (www.lawsuit-nuvaring.com/), etc., that were marketed
to the consumer have later been found to have detrimental side effects that
rival if not exceed the illness it was intended to treat.
It has been documented that Redux and Paxil are products
whose journal articles were ghost written in the fashion stated previously.
With the time, effort and the multitude of certifications and protocols in
place to ensure the ethical treatment of both humans and animals as test
subjects and as patients, why does such a basic convention as having extensive
knowledge about the research performed on a product you are endorsing fall by
the wayside? Could it be the lure of money, the prestige of having your name on
a large amount of papers or just the indifference of the repercussions that
could follow sloppy research practices? Whatever the answer may be, it leaves
the consumer in the dark and in danger.
