Research Center Tied to Drug Company - NYTimes.com
This is not really a new story: pharmaceutical company sets up testing to favour coverage of its product.
It really is in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies to manipulate research in their favour. It's not merely because they are producing a certain product, it's that they are the only company producing their product.
Ford, GM, and other car companies have a vested interest in claiming that cars are safe. However, they also have a vested interest in showing that their cars are safer than other cars. One route that they have to make this claim is demonstrate the safety flaws in the cars of other companies. Since everyone can make cars, there is no one company that has in its interest the safety of all cars.
This is not the case with many pharmaceutical products, because the particular products are often unique. Now it may be the case that drugs get developed in competition with other drugs. For example, a company might try to devise a drug that does the same thing as another drug, but with less side effects, longer duration, or less dangerously. However, for many drug products, the product is a unique way to address a specific problem. There is little or now direct competition against that drug.
This means that the drug is a kind of mini-monopoly and the pharmaceutical company has a lot more leeway in pricing the drug than other products do. The company gets to realize a much higher profit on the drug than they could hope to see with another product. Thus there is far more incentive to pursue questionable business practises than with other products.
Far more has been written on these issues, and written much better, by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. I recommend that anyone interested in the issue check him out. A search under "drug companies" should get some good articles by him and other members of CEPR.
This is not really a new story: pharmaceutical company sets up testing to favour coverage of its product.
It really is in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies to manipulate research in their favour. It's not merely because they are producing a certain product, it's that they are the only company producing their product.
Ford, GM, and other car companies have a vested interest in claiming that cars are safe. However, they also have a vested interest in showing that their cars are safer than other cars. One route that they have to make this claim is demonstrate the safety flaws in the cars of other companies. Since everyone can make cars, there is no one company that has in its interest the safety of all cars.
This is not the case with many pharmaceutical products, because the particular products are often unique. Now it may be the case that drugs get developed in competition with other drugs. For example, a company might try to devise a drug that does the same thing as another drug, but with less side effects, longer duration, or less dangerously. However, for many drug products, the product is a unique way to address a specific problem. There is little or now direct competition against that drug.
This means that the drug is a kind of mini-monopoly and the pharmaceutical company has a lot more leeway in pricing the drug than other products do. The company gets to realize a much higher profit on the drug than they could hope to see with another product. Thus there is far more incentive to pursue questionable business practises than with other products.
Far more has been written on these issues, and written much better, by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. I recommend that anyone interested in the issue check him out. A search under "drug companies" should get some good articles by him and other members of CEPR.
