Big Pharma and academia. Symbiosis or love? I think both...

I have postulated here that academia in general is patronized by Big Pharma which slows down the efforts of academia in the development of new medicinal products. Big Pharma as an enterprise has to be interested in making profits in the first hand – development of novel drugs is not so useful due to it undermines IP value of existed products. Here we have a very nice example of typical symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma (in this particular example GSK) and academia:

The 2006 report described a trial that compared three diabetes drugs and concluded that Avandia, the company’s new drug, performed best.

 

“We now have clear evidence from a large international study that the initial use of [Avandia] is more effective than standard therapies,” a senior vice president of GlaxoSmithKline, Lawson Macartney, said in a news release.

 

What only careful readers of the article would have gleaned is the extent of the financial connections between the drugmaker and the research. The trial had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the 11 authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock. The other seven were academic experts who had received grants or consultant fees from the firm.

 

Whether these ties altered the report on Avandia may be impossible for readers to know. But while sorting through the data from more than 4,000 patients, the investigators missed hints of a danger that, when fully realized four years later, would lead to Avandia’s virtual disappearance from the United States:

 

The drug raised the risk of heart attacks.

 

“If you looked closely at the data that was out there, you could see warning signs,” said Steven E. Nissen, a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist who issued one of the earliest warnings about the drug. “But they were overlooked.”

 

A Food and Drug Administration scientist later estimated that the drug had been associated with 83,000 heart attacks and deaths.

Arguably the most prestigious medical journal in the world, the New England Journal of Medicine regularly features articles over which pharmaceutical companies and their employees can exert significant influence.

 

Over a year-long period ending in August, NEJM published 73 articles on original studies of new drugs, encompassing drugs approved by the FDA since 2000 and experimental drugs, according to a review by The Washington Post.

Of those articles, 60 were funded by a pharmaceutical company, 50 were co-written by drug company employees and 37 had a lead author, typically an academic, who had previously accepted outside compensation from the sponsoring drug company in the form of consultant pay, grants or speaker fees.

Are you surprised? It is absolutely obvious that the academia is not independent anymore. It was bought entered in symbiosis with Big Pharma and we have win-win-lose situation: Big Pharma and academia are winners and sick population is a loser. It looks like Big Pharma and academia mutually fit each other, they perfectly match each other. So romantic relationship! And I guess that one day they have to die together…