Boston forum: topic
This is a public forum
Pharma's influence on MDs
Anna Kushnir
Sunday, 25 January 2009 17:36 UTC
An article in the Globe describes new Mass legislation which may lead to a serious decrease in the number of scientific and medical conferences held in Boston. The legislation aims to increase transparency in the doctor – pharmaceutical company interaction and to lessen the influence of drug companies on doctors. According to the new rules, pharma sponsorship of scientific and medical meetings will be restricted and continuing medical education (CME) credits will no longer be awarded to doctors attending seminars given by drug company scientists or representatives.
What do you think? Do you feel that doctors are being unduly influenced by pharma reps? Or is the legislation limiting the spread of scientific findings?
-
Replies
-
Teasing apart the ties between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry is so complex! As you’ve noted, many conferences wouldn’t happen without pharma companies stumping up the cash. Hopefully the new Mass restrictions will still allow pharmaceutical companies to provide the financial backing for medical conferences but will limit how they are able to influence the programme and scientific sessions.
Incidentally, Craig Rowell and I have been having a discussion over on his blog about pharma influence on off-label prescribing of drugs.
-
The ties between the medical research community and Big Pharma are both tight and diverse. PLoS Medicine has devoted a debate to the matter:
Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL, Wager E, Jacobs A, et al. (2009) What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature? PLoS Med 6(2): e1000023 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023
Sismondo S (2007) Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry? PLoS Med 4(9): e286 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040286
Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, et al. (2007) Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials. PLoS Med 4(1): e19 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019
Especially Sergio Sismondo’s analysis is striking (although his suggestions at the end may be a bit naive).
-
I think this whole pharma act is a bit stupid, you can’t give anyone a clock, or a piece of paper, but you can advertise during primetime tv. What’s more damaging to practice using a Viagra pen or a patient telling you that if you don’t give him a prescription for Humira he’s going to go find a physican that will?
-
Would it be correct to assume that that such restrictions on scientific meetings will reduce the proximity between doctors and medical practitioners? If this is a measure to control the influence of drug companies, why let them fund research projects in universities such as Harvard / MIT. Controlling drug companies and their nexus is not a simple problem and the solution cannot be simple as well.
Also, It is not justified to beeve that drug companies only have a negative influence. They are also important stakeholders in R & D.
-
