Doctors should not accept money to promote drug companies that fund their research.
Hard to argue with.
There's a legitimate argument for paying researchers to speak, and it doesn't mean they become pharma salespeople.
Also hard to argue with.
The first of these statements comes from Charles Ornstein of ProPublica, one of the authors of "Double Dip: Doctors Paid to Advise, Promote Drug Companies That Fund Their Research," co-published by ProPublica and The Boston Globe. The story argues that Yoav Golan, an infectious-disease specialist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, is wrong to accept "tens of thousands of dollars a year to give speeches and advice" on behalf of the drug companies that fund his research on antibiotics. (Ornstein's co-author is Ryann Grochowski Jones, whom I don't know.) He reports that Golan accepted $137,840 from three pharmaceutical companies in 2012.
The second comes from Ford Vox, blogging at Forbes, who writes, "in its zeal to argue how physicians like Golan are corrupting medicine through their industry partnerships, ProPublica went to press without an iota of evidence Golan is corrupt."
So who's right?
I think both of them are, and I hope that won't sound like a cop-out once I explain what I mean.
In an ideal world, all medical research would be supported with public funds. Impartial panels would dole it out, select the worthiest scientists, and make sure the results are properly reported. Some approximation of that occurs in research supported by the National Institutes of Health, when things are running smoothly. (Yes, I know, they often don't–but we can take that up another time.)
Industry research is always tainted. Studies have shown that industry-supported publications are more likely than others to find positive results. And outright corruption, including fabrication of data, is sadly all too common.
But–you knew this was coming–we don't live in an ideal world.
The alternative to industry funding of research is not government-supported research. The alternative usually is that the research doesn't get done at all.
Ornstein's concern about industry payments to researchers is well placed; it can be, and often is, a problem, leading to results we shouldn't trust, but which can nevertheless earn billions for a pharmaceutical company.
At the same time, Vox makes a good case that Ornstein picked the wrong example–that Golan is a respected scientist who has sometimes argued in favor of the use of older, cheaper drugs over newer, more expensive pharmaceutical darlings.
We will never get rid of industry funding of research, and we shouldn't. Nothing could replace it. The federal government couldn't come close to replacing the money spent by pharmaceutical companies on research, not to mention money spent by device-makers and other companies.
What we need is better regulation of industry funding, and more transparency.
Read the stories and see what you think. Who makes the better case?
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply