A string of scandals have been revealed in the drug industry recently, ranging from covered-up drug risks to falsified data.
In yet another incident, research results were submitted under the name of a doctor who had neither written it, reviewed it, nor verified its accuracy.
40 Percent Removed
Procter and Gamble may have removed as much as 40 percent of the data from a recent study of the osteoporosis drug Actonel, according to Dr. Aubrey Blunsohn (a British researcher and bone expert), distorting the final results.
Then, not only did Procter and Gamble submit results under his name, they wouldn't allow him to look at the final version until months after it was submitted to the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Trying to Ensure Accuracy
Scientific journals are still grappling with how to ensure that results they print are complete and accurate in light of these problems. It's a difficult question, especially since drug companies fund roughly 70 percent of studies of medications in the United States. The results they get are increasingly being shown to be biased and inaccurate.
After the bad publicity following attempted coverups of the increased suicide risk connected with antidepressants and heart problems associated with Vioxx, the drug companies vowed to do better. Medical journals and some politicians are trying to take steps to ensure that they do.
Should Companies Help Write the Studies They Fund?
But problems remain. While many leading scientific journals require researchers to affirm that they analyzed all the raw data, not averages or compilations from someone else, a recent survey found a 17 percent rate of reported disputes over access to data.
There was also widespread disagreement over whether companies that pay for research should help write results for publication.
Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a follow-up reiterating its concerns about Merck's deletions to their deceptive Vioxx study in 2000.
Apparently, Merck isn't alone.
The most galling part of Dr. Blunsohn's difficulties with Procter and Gamble is that he was suspended by Sheffield University for discussing the problem in the media, although the university says it encouraged him to pursue the matter through proper channels.
Dr. Blunsohn's beef with Procter and Gamble isn't surprising, as mega-drug companies often steal the credibility of university scientists to give their drug's test results credibility, a factor that may have been responsible for about a third of studies published over a 13-year period whose results were overstated or contradicted.
But these scandals that have made the news are, frankly, just the tip of the iceberg. There is blatant conflict of interest that controls what studies are funded, what topics are chosen for research, and even what results will be claimed.
The drug companies have the money and call the shots, and their research always seems to come up saying "our drugs are good," "our drugs are safe," and "buy our drugs."
Even the peer review process, dependent as it is on the prejudices of the scientists performing the reviews, has a distinct tendency to let flawed papers through if they are on "acceptable" topics, while casting a much more disapproving eye on "alternative" medicine, no matter how solid its foundation in medical fact.
A 2005 survey showed that scientists cannot and do not remain objective in the face of corporate pressures. Scientists admitted to:
Of more than 3,000 scientists surveyed, 20.6 percent admitted to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from the funding source.
And this could be a gross underestimate of actual violations, since misbehaving scientists may have been less likely than others to respond to the survey for fear of discovery.
Good science must be based in fact rather than prejudice, and be free of monetary influence from those who want to see results go a certain way. The current processes for funding, performing and peer reviewing medical studies could all use a good overhaul.
The drug companies do not care about your health. They care about making a profit. And they will blatantly lie to get you to buy their drugs so they can make that profit if they need to, especially since punishments for doing so are usually little more than a slap on the wrist.
That's why my vision of transorming the existing medical paradigm is of such critical importance. When it comes to medical research, the system must change, because your lives are quite literally at stake.