, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 199–219 | Cite as

“You’re not just a paid monkey reading slides”: How key opinion leaders explain and justify their work

  • Sergio SismondoEmail author
  • Zdenka Chloubova
Original Article


Key opinion leaders (KOLs) are physicians and researchers engaged by pharmaceutical companies, most often to speak to audiences of other physicians. This article provides some background information on the structures of pharmaceutical company influence on and control over KOLs. The primary focus of this article, though, is on KOLs’ explanations and justifications of their paid work for the companies, on the basis of, among other sources, 13 interviews with high-earning KOLs. Among KOLs’ important justifications are ones in terms of the educational value of the talks they give and the benefits gained by patients; these are buttressed by claims about the integrity of the speakers. However, those justifications rarely address pharmaceutical companies’ use of KOLs, or larger issues to do with the general influence that pharmaceutical companies have on medical knowledge.


key opinion leaders pharmaceutical industry drug promotion continuing medical education conflict of interest 



Research for this article was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Catalyst Grant #2009-11-02) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#410-2010-1033). Earlier versions of it were presented at Harvard University, the Université de Montréal and the American Anthropological Association and benefited from discussion with those audiences. In particular, the authors would like to thank Marc Rodwin and the anonymous reviewers for this journal for their thoughtful and careful comments.


  1. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (2012) 2012 annual report,, accessed 3 October 2013.
  2. Adams, B. (2014) The impact of the US Sunshine Act: A new dawn begins for pharma’s payments to doctors in the US. PMLive, 19 November,, accessed 29 July 2015.
  3. Angell, M. (2004) The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to do About It. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Bohdanowicz, H. (2009) The synergy of public relations and medical education. Communiqué 24: 14–16,, accessed 27 September 2009.
  5. Brody, H. (2007) Hooked: Ethics, the Medical Profession, and the Pharmaceutical Industry. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, M. and Gregor, F. (2004) Theory ‘in’ everyday life. In: W.K. Caroll (ed.) Critical Strategies for Social Research. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press, pp. 170–180.Google Scholar
  7. CenterWatch (2009) State of the Clinical Trials Industry: A Sourcebook of Charts and Statistics. Boston, MA: CenterWatch.Google Scholar
  8. (2014) OpenPaymentsData,, accessed 4 November 2014.
  9. Coleman, J.S., Katz, E. and Menzel, H. (1966) Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  10. Cutting Edge Information (2013) KOL fair-market value and aggregate spend,, accessed 3 October 2013.
  11. Elliott, C. (2010) White Coat Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, J.A. (2009) Medical Research for Hire: The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fugh-Berman, A. and Ahari, S. (2007) Following the script: How drug reps make friends and influence doctors. PLoS Medicine 4 (4): e150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Healy, D. (2004) Shaping the intimate: Influences on the experience of everyday nerves. Social Studies of Science 34 (2): 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hensley, S. and Martinez, B. (2005) New treatment: To sell their drugs, companies increasingly rely on doctors. Wall Street Journal, 15 July: A1.Google Scholar
  16. Hodges, B. (1995) Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: Experiences and attitudes of psychiatry residents, interns and clerks. Canadian Medical Association Journal 153 (5): 553–559.Google Scholar
  17. InsiteResearch (2008) The prescription for KOL management. Next Generation Pharmaceutical 12,, accessed 28 March 2011.
  18. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kesselheim, A.S., Mello, M.M. and Avorn, J. (2013) FDA regulation of off-label drug promotion under attack. JAMA 309 (5): 445–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lazarsfeld, P. (1944) The election is over. Public Opinion Quarterly 8 (3): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lnx Research (2010) Finding key opinion leaders using social network analysis. Lnx research whitepaper,, accessed 29 March 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. and Bero, L. (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews advance online publication 12 December, doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.Google Scholar
  23. Mack, J. (2005) Thought leader management – A challenge met. Pharma Marketing News, Physician Education Special Supplement: 12–14,, accessed 29 July 2015.
  24. Martin, E. (2006) Pharmaceutical virtue. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 30 (2): 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McNeil, D. (2008) We can work with pharma. Clinical psychiatry news, February,, accessed 31 March 2011.
  26. Moynihan, R. (2008) Key opinion leaders: Independent experts or drug representatives in disguise. British Medical Journal 336 (7658): 1402–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oldani, M. (2004) Thick prescriptions: Toward an interpretation of pharmaceutical sales practices. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 18 (3): 325–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pham-Kanter, G. (2014) Act II of the sunshine act. PLoS Medicine 11 (11): e1001754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodwin, M.A. (1995) Medicine, Money, and Morals: Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rodwin, M. (2010) Drug advertising, continuing medical education and physician prescribing: A historical review and reform proposal. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 38 (4): 807–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sismondo, S. (2009) Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science 39 (2): 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sismondo, S. (2011) Corporate disguises in medical science: Dodging the interest repertoire. Bulletin of Science and Technology Studies 31 (6): 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sismondo, S. (2015) Key opinion leaders: Valuing independence and conflict of interest in the medical sciences. In: I. Dussauge, C.-F. Helgesson and F. Lee (eds.) Value Practices in the Life Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, B.D. (2009) An exploratory study of key opinion leadership management trends among European pharmaceutical companies. Journal of Medical Marketing 9 (4): 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinman, M.A., Shlipak, M.G. and McPhee, S.J. (2001) Of principles and pens: Attitudes and practices of medicine housestaff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. American Journal of Medicine 110 (7): 551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watermeadow (2006) Rethinking the ‘KOL culture’. Next Generation Pharmaceutical Europe 4,, accessed 29 March 2011.Google Scholar
  37. Wave Healthcare (2011) KOL training,, accessed 25 March 2011.
  38. Weber, T. and Ornstein, C. (2010) Dollars for docs: Who’s on pharma’s top-paid list? ProPublica,, accessed 29 March 2011.

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Philosophy and SociologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Social Cultural StudiesGrenfell Campus Memorial UniversityCorner BrookCanada

Personalised recommendations