Basic Science Plagued by Financial Conflicts of Interest, Says Adriane Fugh-Berman

We all know about the biases inherent in drug industry sponsored phase III clinical trials. Ben Goldacre, for example, cites evidence in his book Bad Pharma that claims industry-funded trials are "twenty times more likely to give results favouring the test drug" (see here). But even basic scientists who study the effects of drugs on lab rats and cells in petri dishes may be biased because of funding from the pharmaceutical industry.In other words, industry bias is present from the very beginnings of a drug's life cycle starting even before phase I trials and continuing through the publication of trial results, which are often written by industry-paid ghostwriters! Here's the press release:This "new perspective" was published today in the open access journal PLOS Biology: How Basic Scientists Help the Pharmaceutical Industry Market Drugs. The author, Adriane Fugh-Berman MD, charges that basic science, not just clinical trials, is "plagued by financial conflicts of interest." Fugh-Berman identifies evidence showing that industry-funded studies on animals and cell cultures can be as biased as industry-funded clinical trials, and can distort data on medical treatments. Read more »
Source: Pharma Marketing Blog - Category: Pharma Commentators Tags: Clinical Trials Conflict of Interest ghostwriting Research Source Type: blogs