The Iron Ring

Before I sink my teeth into today's post, I want to include a link to a peice that I wrote that is printed in the August issue of "The Scientist" which just came out online. (http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/24093/) Its short, but it was really interesting for me to write because I got to call up Invitrogen and interview someone there about their dyes.

Moving on- my attention was drawn today to a news story surrounding Aubrey Blumsohn, who is a professor at Sheffield University in England. Blumsohn was involved in a collaboration with Proctor and Gamble in which he claims P&G withheld access to key data and tried to attach his name to the analysis anyway (http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/)

The article has details that would be unnecessary to repeat here. The gist of it is that Proctor and Gamble seemed to have a clear idea of what the outcome of the studies needed to be, and were insistent on presenting that vision regardless of what Blumsohn reported. In fact, they made it difficult for Blumsohn to present anything at all by withholding information and keeping him essentially ‘blinded’ in his analysis.

In other words, P&G was interested in buying a name; Sheffield University, Aubrey Blumsohn, etc, to attach authority to their results.

If this bothers you, imagine for a moment how it is different from how drug reps interact with physicians. I read an article in The Atlantic recently about drug reps, and the doctors who claim they are not affected by them (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/drug-reps)

But they are affected by them, and the statistics prove it.

“From 1996 to 2001 the pharmaceutical sales force in America doubled, to a total of 90,000 reps. One reason is simple: good reps move product. Detailing is expensive, but almost all practicing doctors see reps at least occasionally, and many doctors say they find reps useful. One study found that for drugs introduced after 1997 with revenues exceeding $200 million a year, the average return for each dollar spent on detailing was $10.29. That is an impressive figure. It is almost twice the return on investment in medical-journal advertising, and more than seven times the return on direct-to-consumer advertising.”

It’s clear that for better or worse, a delicate drug rep-physician balance exists, but what about academia? What’s especially bad about the Blumsohn scandal is that Sheffield University was not just complacent; they actually encouraged Blumsohn not to disrupt the flow of money coming from P&G.

What is the difference between investing in drug reps for physicians and investing in research grants as a means to an already determined end?