Skip to main content

How (Not) to Reform Biomedical Research: A Review of Some Policy Proposals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 1

Abstract

In a recent article, Julian Reiss has identified some very important epistemic, moral and socio-economic failures in current biomedical research, and he argues that philosophers of science should reflect on how to (re)organize biomedical research in order to remedy these failures. In this chapter, several possible reforms of biomedical research are evaluated. I will reflect on how to tackle the epistemic failures by comparing the solution suggested by Julian Reiss to an alternative policy option. Most attention will, however, be paid to one of the moral failures: the fact that a disproportionately small part of the money devoted to health research goes to research into diseases that mainly affect third-world countries (the problem of neglected diseases). The most important advantages and disadvantages of some prominent proposals for a solution are disclosed – I will consider the proposals of Thomas Pogge, Joseph Stiglitz, Julian Reiss, and James Robert Brown – and I will also draw attention to an alternative policy proposal.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Reiss groups the third and the fourth recommendation in one section, under the heading “Aligning commercial and (global) patients’ incentives” (Reiss 2010, p. 444).

  2. 2.

    By breadth, Reiss means “the range of ideas that are considered worthy of patent protection” (Reiss 2010, p. 441). Patent breadth can be reduced by making things that are patentable under the existing regime (e.g. new uses of existing drugs, combinations of existing drugs) non-patentable.

  3. 3.

    See http://clinicaltrials.gov/. Accessed 17 August 2012.

  4. 4.

    See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/. Accessed 17 August 2012. Note that Reiss (2010, p. 438n) refers to this source as well, although he mentions a profit margin of 19.1 % instead of 19.3 %.

  5. 5.

    See http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm. Accessed 17 August 2012.

  6. 6.

    By socialized medicine, Brown seems to mean publicly funded medicine (see De Winter 2012b).

  7. 7.

    For a more extensive inquiry into Brown’s argument for the efficiency of socialized medical research, see De Winter (2012b).

References

  • Biddle, Justin. 2007. Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology 21: 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, James R. 2008a. Politics, method, and medical research. Philosophy of Science 75: 756–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.R. 2008b. The community of science®. In The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited, ed. Martin Carrier, Don Howard, and Janet Kourany, 189–216. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, Jan. 2012a. How to make the research agenda in the health sciences less distorted. Theoria 27: 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, J. 2012b. The distorted research agenda in the health sciences and James Robert Brown’s policy proposal. In Logic, philosophy and history of science in Belgium II. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Days 2010, ed. Bart Van Kerkhove, Thierry Libert, Geert Vanpaemel, and Pierre Marage, 123–130. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMasi, Joseph A., Ronald W. Hansen, and Henry G. Grabowski. 2003. The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. Journal of Health Economics 22: 151–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, Aidan, and Thomas Pogge. 2008. The health impact fund: Making new medicines accessible for all. New Haven: Incentives for Global Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 2007. Medicines for the world: Boosting innovation without obstructing free access. Sur – International Journal on Human Rights 5: 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 2009a. Health care reform that works for the U.S. and for the world’s poor. Global Health Governance 2: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, Thomas. 2009b. The health impact fund: Boosting pharmaceutical innovation without obstructing free access. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18: 78–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, Julian. 2010. In favour of a Millian proposal to reform biomedical research. Synthese 177: 427–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, Julian, and Philip Kitcher. 2009. Biomedical research, neglected diseases, and well-ordered science. Theoria 24: 263–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N.H. 2002. Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research. In Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, ed. Nicholas H. Steneck and Mary D. Scheetz, 1–16. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.

  • Stiglitz, Joseph. 2006a. Making globalization work. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, Joseph. 2006b. Scrooge and intellectual property rights: A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations. British Medical Journal 333: 1279–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Jan De Winter is a Ph.D. fellow of the Research Foundation (FWO) – Flanders. I am very grateful to Erik Weber, Jeroen Van Bouwel, Julian Reiss, and an anonymous reviewer for reviewing earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan De Winter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Winter, J. (2014). How (Not) to Reform Biomedical Research: A Review of Some Policy Proposals. In: van den Hoven, J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, BJ., Romijn, H. (eds) Responsible Innovation 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8956-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics