How did I not find this before now?
Meet Daniel Carlat, MD. He's a psychiatrist, or as I usually put it, another damned shrink.
Except he's not, or at least not entirely. He's written a book recently on the issues in psychiatry and its too close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry; I will be reading it Real Soon Now. But he has the above noted blog on which he occasionally puts some interesting material, including these bits from back in May:
"Industry-paid speakers frequently deny espousing marketing messages. I’ve heard many physicians justify their pharma-funded speaking gigs by saying, “I never emphasize their product” or, triumphantly, “I don’t even mention their drug!” But these comments only highlight their sales skills. Pharma doesn’t hire doctors to sell drugs; that’s a drug rep’s job. Pharma hires physicians to sell diseases
And (from Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and one of the finest academic docs I know):
"And to those academic researchers who think the current path is just fine, I have this to say: no, it is not necessary to accept personal payments from drug companies to collaborate on research. There was plenty of innovative research before 1980-at least as much as there is now-when academic researchers began to expect rewards from industry. And no, you are not entitled to anything you want just because you’re very smart. Conflicts of interest in academic medicine have serious consequences, and it is time to stop making excuses for them."
And finally, also from Dr. Angell:
"I’m aware that my proposals might seem radical. That is because we are now so drenched in market ideology that any resistance is considered quixotic."
Which is a big part of my personal opinion as well. With all respect to my friends who are believers in the power of the market, I submit there are a few areas where the market fails (and apparently regular *times* when the market fails, as we are re-learning to our sorrow). This is one; the market of cash inevitably distorts the market of ideas, to the detriment of both (although to the great benefit of the company which is most effective at distorting the market well enough for long enough).
Worth reading; it'll be on my list from now on.
Except he's not, or at least not entirely. He's written a book recently on the issues in psychiatry and its too close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry; I will be reading it Real Soon Now. But he has the above noted blog on which he occasionally puts some interesting material, including these bits from back in May:
"Industry-paid speakers frequently deny espousing marketing messages. I’ve heard many physicians justify their pharma-funded speaking gigs by saying, “I never emphasize their product” or, triumphantly, “I don’t even mention their drug!” But these comments only highlight their sales skills. Pharma doesn’t hire doctors to sell drugs; that’s a drug rep’s job. Pharma hires physicians to sell diseases
And (from Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and one of the finest academic docs I know):
"And to those academic researchers who think the current path is just fine, I have this to say: no, it is not necessary to accept personal payments from drug companies to collaborate on research. There was plenty of innovative research before 1980-at least as much as there is now-when academic researchers began to expect rewards from industry. And no, you are not entitled to anything you want just because you’re very smart. Conflicts of interest in academic medicine have serious consequences, and it is time to stop making excuses for them."
And finally, also from Dr. Angell:
"I’m aware that my proposals might seem radical. That is because we are now so drenched in market ideology that any resistance is considered quixotic."
Which is a big part of my personal opinion as well. With all respect to my friends who are believers in the power of the market, I submit there are a few areas where the market fails (and apparently regular *times* when the market fails, as we are re-learning to our sorrow). This is one; the market of cash inevitably distorts the market of ideas, to the detriment of both (although to the great benefit of the company which is most effective at distorting the market well enough for long enough).
Worth reading; it'll be on my list from now on.