More Research Scandals in the News

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:

• Falsifying or "cooking" research data

• Not properly disclosing conflicts of interest

• Failing to present contrary data

• Using inadequate or inappropriate research design

• Dropping observations or data points, and inadequate record keeping

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.