Corporate influences on epidemiology.

[Guest guest]

Corporate influences on epidemiology

(Courtesy a medical group. The matter is available in public domain

so I am circulating it. It is good to know that doctors are now

aware of the politics of medicine.)

 

Neil Pearce

Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University Wellington

Campus - Wellington, New Zealand

International Journal of Epidemiology - Volume 37, Number 1,

February

2, 2008

 

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 46-53; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym270

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

Corporate influences on epidemiology have become stronger and

more pervasive in the last few decades, particularly in the

contentious fields of pharmacoepidemiolog y and occupational

epidemiology. For every independent epidemiologist studying the

side effects of medicines and the hazardous effects of

industrial chemicals, there are several other epidemiologists

hired by industry to attack the research and to debunk it as

‘junk science’. In some instances these activities have gone as

far as efforts to block publication. In many instances,

academics have accepted industry funding which has not been

acknowledged, and only the academic affiliations of the

company-funded consultants have been listed.

 

These activities are major threats to the integrity of the

field, and its survival as a scientific discipline. There is no

simple solution to these problems. However, for the last two

decades there has been substantial discussion on ethics in

epidemiology, partly in response to the unethical conduct of

many industry-funded consultants. Professional organizations,

such as the International Epidemiological Association, can play

a major role in encouraging and supporting epidemiologists to

assert positive principles of how science should work, and how

it should be applied to public policy decisions, rather than

simply having a list of what not to do….â€

 

Joanna Haas

Commentary: Epidemiology and the pharmaceutical industry: an

inside perspective

IJE Advance Access published on January 9, 2008

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 53-55; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym264

[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

‘…..Neil Pearce's impassioned comments on ‘Corporate

Influences

on Epidemiology’1 are designed to raise awareness of industry

activities that he believes ‘are major threats to the integrity

of the field, and its survival as a scientific discipline’. He

argues that ‘for every independent epidemiologist studying the

side effects of medicines there are several other

epidemiologists hired by industry to attack the research and

debunk it as " junk science " ’. While we recognize his depth of

feeling, passion may nurture bias of its own. The relationship

between science and industry is complex, and the role of

epidemiologists in the pharmaceutical industry is not limited

to debunking ‘junk science’. Balanced evaluation and discussion

are necessary to provide accurate safety information to

physicians and patients. Unfortunately, such temperate

interchanges rarely make headlines and seldom sell books…â€

 

A White, N Robinson, P Egger, M Stender, K Davis, J Weil, and S

Bowlin

Commentary: Collaboration between industry-based and academic

epidemiologists

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 56-57; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym265

[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

‘…..In many instances, academics have accepted industry funding

which has not been acknowledged, and only the academic

affiliations of the company-funded consultants have been

listed’. He believes that this and other unethical practises

are major threats to the integrity of epidemiological research.

Although the article is addressed primarily to academic

epidemiologists who consult with industry, there are a number

of issues raised in the article that merit comment from those

of us who practice epidemiology within a large, research-based

pharmaceutical company….’

 

Sander Greenland

Commentary: Addressing Corporate Influence Through Ethical

Guidelines

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 57-59; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym267

[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

‘…..I support declarations of conflict of interest and

mandatory disclosure of funding sources. I think corporate

influence by and large seeks to benefit only one entity: The

corporation. That condition is an inevitable by-product of the

competitive environment in which corporations are naturally

selected: A corporation that prospers does so largely because

of its self-aggrandizing traits. Admitting this fact is an

essential step toward addressing the problems to society and

individuals that result. But also needed is an appreciation of

the complex interplay of individuals and units within and among

corporate entities, and a realistic appraisal of conditions

within and among corporations….â€

 

Carl V Phillips

Commentary: Lack of scientific influences on epidemiology

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 59-64; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym266

[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

“…..since I have done a few critical scientific analyses of

epidemiological claims as part of industry consultancies. More

significantly, the anti-scientific attacks on epidemiology that

I have been a victim of have come not from corporations, or

even government, but from those who are thought by most people

to be public health advocates. The players and specific areas

of research are different, but as with corporate influence,

influential organized interests are willing to damage science

and even sacrifice people's health to further their goals….â€

 

Neil Pearce

Response: The distribution and determinants of epidemiologic

research

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 65-68; doi:10.1093/ ije/dym268

[Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

 

“…..Epidemiology is commonly defined as the study of ‘the

distribution and determinants of disease in human populations’.

Thus,

epidemiology is inherently focused on populations, and

epidemiologists recognize that anecdotes about individuals cannot be

used to refute evidence about populations. For example, an anecdote

about someone who smoked one pack a day and lived to be 100, or

someone who never smoked and developed lung cancer anyway, does not

refute the evidence that people who smoke a pack a day get lung

cancer at 10 times the rate of non-smokers. Similarly, anecdotes

about individual epidemiologists acting ethically or unethically do

not confirm or refute evidence about general tendencies.

 

In my commentary about corporate influences on epidemiology, 1 I was

not intending to comment on specific individuals (with the

occasional

exception of extreme cases which are too blatant to ignore), but

rather to comment on the distribution and determinants of

epidemiologic research, particularly current corporate influences on

what research gets done and how the findings are received

 

Think Simply. Think Wisely.

Curb Semantics. Speak the Truth.

 

 

 

Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin.

 

--- End forwarded message ---