The Thalidomide Disaster, Lessons from the Past

  • James E. Ridings
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 947)


It is close to 60 years since thalidomide was created by the German company, Chemie-Grünenthal, and launched as “Contergan.” This was soon to be followed in England by the launch of “Distaval.” Of all the drugs developed in the intervening years, thalidomide has undoubtedly had the greatest influence on shaping the Pharmaceutical Industry as we know it today.

Strong marketing pressure in an Industry hungry for new medicines brought an inadequately tested drug to the market, targeted outsourcing quickly expanded the client base and finally market forces prevented timely withdrawal, even when evidence was emerging of disastrous side-effects. The full story of thalidomide was told by the Sunday Times in “Suffer The Children” (Kingsley et al., Suffer the children: the story of thalidomide, the insight team of the Sunday times (UK), 1979).

Many preventative measures have been taken in the intervening years in light of the lessons learned with thalidomide. However, many of the pressures that led to the thalidomide disaster exist today with record high management and shareholder pressures to achieve success, parallel worldwide marketing, increased numbers of targeted outsourcing by small companies forming alliances with “Big Pharma” and, according to some commentators, a breakdown in the system of checks and balances that have existed in the regulatory authorities in the intervening years.

Using thalidomide as a point of reference, this chapter looks at drug development and testing, regulatory authorities and guidelines, outsourcing and in-licensing, pharmacovigilance, and factors that influence withdrawal of a drug from the market.

Key words

Teratology Thalidomide 


  1. 1.
    Banerjee U, Geh SL (1976) A comparative study of several methods for recording spontaneous motor activity in mice under drug effects. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 20:53–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burley DM, Dennison TC, Harrison W (1959) Clinical experience with a new sedative drug. Practitioner 183:57–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kingsley P et al (1979) Suffer the children: the story of thalidomide, the insight team of the Sunday times (UK). Futura Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sjostrom H (1972) Thalidomide and the power of the drug companies. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins FS et al (1998) Guidelines for evaluation of reproductive and developmental toxicity of food additives in females. Int J Toxicol 17:299–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wilson JG (1973) Environment and birth defects (environmental science series). Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agranat I, Caner H, Caldwell J (2002) Putting chirality to work: the strategy of chiral switches. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1:753–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schardein J (1976) Drugs as teratogens. CRC, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briggs G, Freeman R, Yaffe S (2011) Drugs in pregnancy and lactation: a reference guide to fetal and neonatal risk. Williams and Wilkins, LipencottGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schumacher H et al (1972) The teratogenic activity of a thalidomide analogue, EM12 in rabbits, rats and monkeys. Teratology 5:233–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins T (2006) History of evolution of reproductive and developmental toxicology guidelines. Curr Pharm Des 12:1449–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The History of the International Conference of Harmonisation Guidelines (1990) Accessed 19 Aug 2011
  13. 13.
    Norbert C (2010) Outsourcing in drug development. Drug Development, 48–49Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Paediatric Regulation (2006): Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 Dec 2006, on Medicinal Products for Paediatric Use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. Official Journal L378, 27/12/2006, P001-0019Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stanford University Medical Center (2008) 14 Drugs identified as most urgently needing study for off-label use. ScienceDaily. Accessed 17 Aug 2011
  16. 16.
    Horen B, Montastru JL, Lapeyre-Mestre M (2002) Adverse drug reactions and off-label use in paediatric outpatients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 54:665–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clark R et al (2008) Developmental toxicity of artesunate in the rat: comparison to other artemisinins, comparison of embryotoxicity and kinetics by oral and intravenous routes, and relationship to maternal reticulocyte count. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 83:397–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark R (2009) Embryotoxicity of the artemisinin antimalarials and potential consequences for Use in women in the first trimester. Reprod Toxicol 28:285–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organisation (2006) Assessment of the safety of artemisinin compounds in pregnancy. Report of two informal consultations convened by the special program for research and training in tropical diseases and the global malaria program of the World Health Organisation. WHO/CDS/MAL/20903.1094. WHO/GMP/TDR/Artemesinin/07.1.ISBN 978 92 4 159 611 4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reuben B (2007) Contributory factors in recent drug disasters. Accessed 18 Aug 2011
  21. 21.
    Drug Firms Hit by Safety Scares (2004) BBC News. Accessed 18 Aug 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GlaxoSmithKlineWareUK

Personalised recommendations