Over at Scientific American, Laura Newman has a post recapping three recent papers in the BMJ that conclude that insulin...
Over at Scientific American, Laura Newman has a post recapping three recent papers in the BMJ that conclude that insulin...
Over at Scientific American, Laura Newman has a post recapping three recent papers in the BMJ that conclude that insulin analogues--genetically engineered insulin replacements--show no compelling advantages over human insulin but cost two to four times as much.
We've heard this kind of story before, but it's worth remembering that despite outsiders' attempts to uncover and discourage such things, the pharmaceutical industry continues, in at least some circumstances, to value marketing over research. And that is precisely where reporters should go to make the distinction and to clarify what's going on--which is what Newman does here.
-Paul Raeburn
Even the pharmaceutical industry cannot decide what it costs to bring a new drug to market.
PhRMA, the industry trade group, says here that, for a new drug, "winning approval, on average, takes 15 years of R&D and costs more than $1 billion." In a little cartoon Youtube video that explains how drugs win approval, it says the cost is $1.3-$1.6 billion. And the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, an industry-supported group, says in its most recent report that the "the...
I find myself at something of a loss to track the work of John Fauber of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I've praised him before for stories on physicians' conflicts of interest, and I'm reduced now to doing more-or-less what I did then: Let Fauber's stories speak for themselves.
The stories, in my view, are textbook cases of investigative reporting--and writing. I can't think of any higher or more sophisticated thing to say than that these stories are done exactly the way that such stories should be done--and Fauber's doing them better than almost anybody else.
From the latest effort, a two-part series (...