E-DRUG: Conflict of interest when dual positions in academia and industry
-----------------------------------------------
[This has been extensively debated over the years on E-drug and elsewhere. Of course the reply to both of his questions is no. Javier should search e-drug archives, but since we have so many well-informed subscribers: if you have a database or other info to send Javier, please send it to him directly, not to e-drug. Moderator]
Literature on conflict of interest when joining clinical pharmacology units and working for pharmaceutical companies
Hello members,
I am asking for help about reviews, official position statements,
ethical discussions, etc. about the following:
* When physicians work as clinical evaluators & recruiters paid
per-enrollement and directly for studies planned, financed and data
recovered by pharmaceutical companies or areas directly dependent of
their money... is it good to permit this people to also be part of
clinical pharmacology units, which monitor good practices, inclusions
of essential drugs listings for a health institution, adverse event
reporting monitoring, etc.?
* When physicians become part of national comittees which decide on
new vaccines for national programmes of immunization... is it good for
this people to receive travel, hotel & conferences expeditures for
international meetings financed by vaccine development companies? Is
it good to permit this people become part of clinical pharmacology
units?
Thanks for your help,
Javier Santisteban-Ponce, MD
Department of Pediatrics
Cayetano Heredia University
Lima, Peru
jsantistebanponce@aap.net
flogisto@usa.net
E-DRUG: Conflict of interest when dual positions in academia and industry (2)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear colleague(s),
There is no simple answer, because a full "NO" is theoretical. It all
depends on the definition of clinical pharmacology, and if, with the
1971 WHO report, one defines it as a medical speciality, then it
should have three functions: (a) patient care, (b) teaching and (c)
research. The number of persons with sufficient knowledge and
expertise in this field is extremely limited, and, as worldwide
research funds are drying up, industry has become one of the main
sources of money. It is therefore almost impossible to find a
clinical pharmacologist who has never accepted - either personally or
for his work - money from industry. If such persons exist they are
lying or they have rarely published anything worthwhile, except
perhaps some second-hand "pharmapolitics" or epidemiological
research. It is the same with gouvernment officials or members of
registration committees; certainly the great majority of clinicians
with expert knowledge have been or are involved in industry-funded
research. But what is absolutely necessary is that such transactions
should be 100% transparent and all data accessible in the public
domain. In addition any personal gains should be avoided and any
income from such sources should be administered by the hospital, the
university or any related public institution. To my opinion that also
applies to foreign travel and conference attendance, even if its
means that a poorly funded archaeologist from the same university
might also profit. There is no reason why a cardiologist should
travel first class and sleep in a five-star hotel when his colleagues
doing fundamental research stay at a youth hostel. Many people forget
that income from medicines is - apart from the unavoidable expenses
made by the industry - public money paid by tax payers. Medicines are
not consumption articles like TV sets, cars or luxury foods.
So in principle funding drug research by industry should be OK, but
on certain conditions which should be accurately laid down. Any
research worker who wants to cheat will do so, whether funded from
outside sources or not. It is the responsibility of universities and
institutions to attract people with the highest standards and
supervise both the economical and the research aspects.
An exception should of course be made for civil servants involved in
drug registration and inspection. They should at all costs remain
free from any ties with industry because their only responsibility is
the defence of public and individual patient health and any deviation
from this principle should be regarded as corruption.
I hope that I have made clear to clinical pharmacologists or related
persons that there is a fundamental difference between the ideal
world of principled opinions and what happens in the real world.
Prohibition is not an option, regulation is.
Best wishes,
Leo Offerhaus,
the Netherlands.
offerhausl@euronet.nl
[the moderator agrees that 'no' might be theoretical and that regulation and transparency are the key words].
E-DRUG: Conflict of interest when dual positions in academia and industry (3)
--------------------------------------------------
Many years ago when I use to be a member of the Rotary Club in my home
country, Sierra Leone, I recall what was referred to then as the "4-way
test", They were 4 basic questions Rotarians were reminded and encouraged
to ask themselves in all the things they think, say or do, namely (1) Is
it the truth? (2) Is it fair to all concerned, (3) Will it build goodwill
and better friendships? (4) Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
As I read Leo's pragmatic and frank arguments, which I also agree with, I
thought that perhaps, in this matter, if both Industry and the Researcher
answered the above questions in the affirmative, we would be well on our
way to "win-win".
Murtada M. Sesay
Technical Officer (Pharmaceuticals)
UNICEF Supply Division
E-DRUG: Concession of customs duty on import of raw materials in Pakistan
----------------------------------------------------------------
[can E-druggers please try to limit the number of words in titles. The full title of this was: Concession of customs duty on import of pharmaceutical raw materials for essential medicines. Moderator]
In the budget 2007-08 (Pakistan), it is proposed that the custom duty on the raw materials of essential medicines will be @ zero percent. It was also suggested that the medicines for life threatening diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis may also be excluded from custom duty.
This will help in improving access to essential medicines in the country.
The government needs to ensure that the reduction in prices of raw materials also translates in the reduction of retail prices.
Azhar Hussain
Director (Associate Professor)
Hamdard Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Hamdard University
F-8 Markaz, Islamabad
Pakistan
00-92-51-2856901 Ext. 217
00-92-51-2856433 (Fax)
"Azhar Hussain" <azhar_hussain@hamdard-isb.edu.pk>