Synthese

, Volume 177, Issue 3, pp 427–447

In favour of a Millian proposal to reform biomedical research

Open Access
Article

Abstract

One way to make philosophy of science more socially relevant is to attend to specific scientific practises that affect society to a great extent. One such practise is biomedical research. This paper looks at contemporary U.S. biomedical research in particular and argues that it suffers from important epistemic, moral and socio-economic failings. It then discusses and criticises existing approaches to improve on the status quo, most prominently by Thomas Pogge (a political philosopher), Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel-prize winning economist) and James Robert Brown (a philosopher of science). Finally, it sketches an alternative proposal and argues for its superiority. The proposal has four components: changing the intellectual property regime; instituting independent clinical research; aligning innovators’ and patients’ interests; and enacting additional regulation.

Keywords

Biomedical research John Stuart Mill Global Justice Methodology 

References

  1. Aaron H. (2003) The costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada—questionable answers to a questionable question. New England Journal of Medicine 349(8): 801–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam M. (2008) Promoting disinterestedness or making use of bias? Interests and moral obligation in commercialized research. In: Carrier M., Howard D., Kourany J. (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited. Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 235–255Google Scholar
  3. Als-Nielsen B., Chen W., Gluud C., Kjaergard L. (2003) Association of funding and conclusion in randomized drug trials: A reflection of treatment effect of adverse events?. Journal of the American Medical Association 290(7): 921–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angell M. (2004) The truth about the drug companies. Random House, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  5. Anuradha, R. V. (2001, May 20). Biopiracy and traditional knowledge. The Hindu.Google Scholar
  6. Bekelman J., Li Y., Gross C. (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 289(4): 454–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biddle J. (2007) Lessons from the Vioxx debacle: What the privatization of science can teach us about social epistemology. Social Epistemology 21: 21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenthal D., Campbell E., Anderson M., Causino N., Louis K. (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science. Journal of the American Medical Association 277(15): 1224–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodenheimer T. (2000) Uneasy alliance. New England Journal of Medicine 342(20): 1539–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. (2002). Perfectly competitive innovation. Research Department Staff Report 303. Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  11. Boldrin M., Levine D. (2008) Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown J. R. (2002) Funding, objectivity and the socialization of medical research. Science and Engineering Ethics 8: 295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown J. R. (2004) Money, method, and medical research. Episteme 1: 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, J. R. (2006). Regulation and research: Approaches to market failures in medicine. In Commerce, politics and science conference, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  15. Brown J. R. (2008) The community of science®. In: Carrier M., Howard D., Kourany J. (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited. Pittsburgh University Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 189–216Google Scholar
  16. Campbell E., Gruen R., Mountford J., Miller L., Cleary P., Blumenthal D. (2007) A national survey of physician-industry relationships. New England Journal of Medicine 356(17): 1742–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrier M. (2008) Science in the grip of the economy: On the epistemic impact of the commercialization of research. In: Carrier M., Kourany J., Howard D. (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 217–234Google Scholar
  18. Cartwright N. (2006) Well-ordered science: Evidence for use. Philosophy of Science 73: 981–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cartwright N. (2007) Are RCTs the gold standard?. BioSocieties 2(2): 11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chalmers I. (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association 263(10): 1405–1408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chin, T. (2002, May 6). Drug firms score by paying doctors for time. American Medical News.Google Scholar
  22. Chow S.-C., Liu J.-P. (2002) Design and analysis of clinical trials: Concepts and methodologies (2nd ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  23. Christensen J., Orlowski J. (2005) Bounty-hunting and finder’s fees. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 27(3): 16–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen J., Gürtler R. (2001) Modeling household transmission of American trypanosomiasis. Science 293: 694–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Francisco, A., & Matlin, S. (2006). Monitoring financial flows for health research 2006: The changing landscape of health research for development. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.Google Scholar
  26. Donohue J., Cevasco M., Rosenthal N. (2007) A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. New England Journal of Medicine 357: 673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Getz K. (1999) AMCs rekindling clinical research partnerships with industry. Centerwatch, BostonGoogle Scholar
  28. Global Forum for Health Research. (2004a). The 10/90 report on health research 2003–2004. Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.Google Scholar
  29. Global Forum for Health Research. (2004b). Monitoring financial flows for health research (Vol. 2). Geneva: Global Forum for Health Research.Google Scholar
  30. Harris, G. (2004, December 6). At F.D.A., strong drug ties and less monitoring. New York Times.Google Scholar
  31. Hartman, M., Martin, A., McDonnell, P., Catlin, A., & the National Health Expenditure Accounts Team. (2009). National health spending in 2007: Slower drug spending contributes to lowest rate of overall growth since 1998. Health Affairs, 28(1), 246–261.Google Scholar
  32. Heffner, S. (2004, March). Beyond the CRO. Contract Pharma.Google Scholar
  33. Hilts P. (2003) Protecting America’s health: The FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  34. Hollis A., Pogge T. (2008) The health impact fund: Making new medicines accessible for all. New Haven, CT, Incentives for Global HealthGoogle Scholar
  35. Howson C., Urbach P. (2005) Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Open Court, Chicago and LaSalle, ILGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008). Prescription drug trends. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Kincaid H. (2004) Contextualism, explanation and the social sciences. Philosophical Explorations 7(3): 201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kincaid, H., Dupré, J., Wylie, A. (eds) (2007) Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Kincaid, H., McKitrick, J. (eds) (2007) Establishing medical reality: Essays on the metaphysics and epistemology of science. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitcher P. (1993) The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitcher P. (2001) Science, truth and democracy. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kreling, D., Mott, D., Wiederholt, J., Lundy, J., & Levitt, L. (2001). Prescription drug trends: A chartbook update. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  43. Krimsky S. (2003) Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  44. Longino H. (1990) Science as social knowledge. Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, PAGoogle Scholar
  45. Longino H. (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, PAGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayo D. (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University Press, Chicago ILGoogle Scholar
  47. McGoey, L., Reiss, J., & Wahlberg, A. (forthcoming). The health complex: Progress and pathologies in global health funding and governance. BioSocieties.Google Scholar
  48. Mirowski P., Sent E.-M. (2002) Introduction, Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILGoogle Scholar
  49. Mirowski P., Van Horn R. (2005) The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 34(4): 503–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell S. (2009) Unsimple truths. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  51. Morgan S., Raymond C., Mooney D., Martin D. (2008) The Canadian RX atlas (2nd ed.). Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  52. Moynihan R. (2003) Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. British Medical Journal 326: 1189–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pogge T. (2005) Human rights and global health: A research program. Metaphilosophy 36(1/2): 182–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pollack, A. (2001, January 8). Bristol-Myers and Athersys make deal on gene patents. New York Times.Google Scholar
  55. Public Citizen. (2001). Rx R&D myths: The case against the drug industry’s R&D “scare card”. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.Google Scholar
  56. Public Citizen. (2003). 2002 Drug industry profits: Hefty pharmaceutical company margins dwarf other industries. Washington, DC: Public Citizen.Google Scholar
  57. Public Library of Science. (2006). Special issue on disease mongering. PLoS Medicine, 3(4).Google Scholar
  58. Putnam H. (2002) The fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. Reiss J., Kitcher P. (2009) Biomedical research, neglected diseases and well-ordered science. Theoria 24(3): 263–282Google Scholar
  60. Risse, M. (forthcoming). The grounds of justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rosenthal M., Bernt E., Donohue J., Frank R., Epstein A. (2002) Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. New England Journal of Medicine 346(7): 498–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Selgelid M. (2005) Ethics and infectious disease. Bioethics 19(3): 272–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shuchman M. (2007) Commercializing clinical trials—risks and benefits of the CRO boom. New England Journal of Medicine 357(14): 1365–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stiglitz J. (2006a) Making globalization work. Norton, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  65. Stiglitz J. (2006b) Scrooge and intellectual property rights: A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations. British Medical Journal 333: 1279–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilholt T. (2006) Design rules: Industrial research and epistemic merit. Philosophy of Science 73(1): 66–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilkes M., Bell R., Kravitz R. (2000) Direct-to-consumer prescription durg advertising: Trends, impact, and implications. Health Affairs 19(2): 110–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Woolhandler S., Campbell T., Himmelstein D. (2003) Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. New England Journal of Medicine 349: 768–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Worrall J. (2002) What evidence in evidence-based medicine. Philosophy of Science 69: S316–S330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations