Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Good Science for Good Pharma—A Public-Health Model

  • Chapter
Good Pharma

  • 149 Accesses

Abstract

It’s worse than you think but could be much better than you imagine. In the Introduction, we described and documented the ways in which patent-driven research and prices set at 50–100 times manufacturing costs, have corrupted the research process, the products of pharmaceutical research, medical knowledge, the way drugs are approved, and the prescribing choices physicians make. Drug companies distort each of these steps to maximize profits, usually with little benefit to patients. Risks of serious adverse reactions from new drugs are one in five.1 While patenting may work out better in other areas of industrial research like software development, funding research to find better medicines through patent-protected high prices and monopolistic submarkets has inverted or corrupted biomedical research, especially in rich countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Light D, Lexchin J, Darrow J. Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3): 590–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Archives of Internal Medicine. 2012; 172 (21): 1680–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Light DW. Pricing pharmaceuticals in the USA. In: Temple NJ, Thompson A, eds. Excessive Medical Spending: Facing the Challenge. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006: 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gagnon M-A. Corruption of pharmaceutical markets: addressing the misalignment of financial incentives and public policy reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis C, Abraham J. Unhealthy Pharmaceutical Regulation: Innovation, Politics and Promisory Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Goozner M. The $800 Million Pill: The Truth Behind the Cost of New Drugs. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brody H, Light DW. The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2011; 101 (3): 399–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cosgrove L, Krimsky S. A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-V panel members financial associations with industry: a pernicious problem persists. PLoS Medicine. 2012 (Mar 13) 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cosgrove L, Wheeler E. Drug firms, the codification of diagnostic categories, and bias in clinical guidelines. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3): 644–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Healy D. Pharmageddon. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McGoey L. Sequestered evidence and the distortion of clinical practice guidelines. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2009; 52: 203–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McGoey L, Jackson E. Seroxat and the suppression of clinical trial data: regulatory failure and the uses of legal ambiguity. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2009; 35: 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Every-Palmer S, Howick J. How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2014 (May): doi: 10.1111/jep.12147.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Morgan SG, Bassett KL, Wright JM, et al. “Breakthrough” drugs and growth in expenditure on prescription drugs in Canada. BMJ. 2005; 331 (7520): 815–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Olson MK. Are novel drugs more risky for patients than less novel drugs? Journal of Health Economics. 2004; 23 (6): 1135–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olson MK. The risk we bear: the effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety. Journal of Health Economics. 2008; 27 (2): 175–200;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carpenter D, Chattopadhyay J, Moffitt S, Nall C. The complication of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety. American Journal of Political Science. 2012; 56 (1): 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stafford RS. Regulating off-label drug use—rethinking the role of the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 358: 1427–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. A hemorrhage of off-label use. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011; 154 (8): 566–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodwin M. Five un-easy pieces of pharmaceutical policy reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013; 41 (3): 581–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gøtzsche P. Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Public Citizen Health Research Group. Rapidly Increasing Criminal and Civil Monetary Penalties Against the Pharmaceutical Industry: 1991–2010. Washington DC: Public Citizen Health Research Group; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Braithwaite J. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1984

    Google Scholar 

  24. Braithwaite J, Dukes M. Corporations, Crime and Medicines. 2015 (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mokhiber R. Corporate crime in the pharmaceutical industry. CounterPunch. 2012 (Jan 3).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Light DW, ed. The Risks of Prescription Drugs. New York: Columbia University Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Light, Lexchin, and Darrow, Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals; European Commission Enterprise and Industry. Safe, Innovative and Accessible Medicines: A Renewed Vision for the Pharmaceutical Sector. Brussels: European Commission Enterprise and Industry; 2008

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. Journal of American Medical Association. 1998; 279 (15): 1200–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De La Merced M, Gelles D, Abrams R. Seeking the right chemistry, drug makers hunt for mergers. The New York Times. 2014 (Apr 22).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc O, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. London: The Cochrane Library; 2012

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chen M-M, Landerfeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of Gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006; 145 (4): 284–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Medicine. 2008 (Nov); 5 (11): e217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Steinman MA, Harper GM, Chen M-M, Landerfeld CS, Bero LA. Characteristics and impact of drug detailing for Gabapentin. PLoS Medicine. 2007; 4 (4): 743–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012; 344

    Google Scholar 

  35. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 358: 252–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kesselheim AS, Robertson C, Meyers J, et al. A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012; 367: 1119–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Drazen J. Believe the data. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012; 367 (12): 1152–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Light DW. How physicians interpret research funding disclosures. New England Journal of Medicine. 2012; 367: 2358–2360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Posner R. Why there are too many patents in America. The Atlantic. Boston: The Atlantic; 2012 (Jul 12).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Liberati A. Need to realign patient-oriented and commercial academic research. The Lancet. 2011; 378: 1777–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Brody and Light, Inverse benefit law; Steinman et al., Narrative review: promotion; Public Citizen Health Research Group. Pharmaceutical Industry Criminal and Civil Penalties: An Update. Washington DC: Public Citizen Health Research Group; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  42. McManus R. Vaccine research center celebrates first decade nih record. Vol. LXIII. Bethesda, MD; 2011: 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Munos B, Chin W. How to revive breakthrough innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Science Translational Medicine. 2011; 3 (89): 1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Munos B. Open Scientific Collaboration for Innovation in Global Health (OpenSCI.) Durham, NC: DukeSanfordSchool; 2012 (May 2).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Maroso M, Balosso S, Ravizza T, et al. Toll-like receptor 4 and high mobility group box-1 are involved in ictogenesis and can be targeted to reduce seizures. Nature Medicine. 2010; 16: 413–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lucca U, Garri M, Recchia A, Logroscino G, et al. A population-based study of dementia in the oldest old: the Monzino 80-plus study. BMC Neurology. 2011; 11: 54–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lucca U, Nobili A, Riva E, Tettamanti M. Cholinesterase inhibitor use and age in the general population. Archives of Neurology. 2006; 63: 134–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nobili A, Garattini S, Mannucci P. Multiple disease and polypharmacy in the elderly: challenges for the internist of the third millennium. Journal of Comorbidity. 2011; 1: 28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ghibelli S, Marengoni A, Djade C, Nobili A, et al. Prevention of inappropriate prescribing in hospitalized older patients using a computerized prescription support system. Drugs Aging. 2013 (Aug 14): DOI: 1007/s4&–40013–40109–40265.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kantarjian HM, Steensma D, Sanjuan JR, Elshaug A, Light D. High cancer drug prices in the United States: reasons and proposed solutions. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2014 (May)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Light DW, Kantarjian H. Market spiral pricing of cancer drugs. Cancer. 2013 (Nov); 119 (22): 3900–3902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Healy, Pharmageddon; Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines; Kassirer JP. On the Take: How Medicine’s Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Bok D. Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Graedon J. Are drug companies bankrupting healthcare? The People’s Pharmacy Newsletter. 2014 (Sept 25). http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2014/09/22/are- drug-companies-bankrupting-healthcare/

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rother J. Abusive specialty drug pricing threatens healthcare system. The Hill. 2014 (June 3). http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/207929-abusive-specialty-drug-pricing-threatens-healthcare-system.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Donald W. Light
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio F. Maturo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2015 Donald W. Light and Antonio F. Maturo

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Light, D.W., Maturo, A.F. (2015). Good Science for Good Pharma—A Public-Health Model. In: Good Pharma. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137374332_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation