PHA-Exch> Corporate influences on epidemiology

Tue Feb 5 04:05:57 PST 2008

From: Ruggiero, Mrs. Ana Lucia (WDC) <ruglucia at paho.org>
crossposted from: EQUIDAD at listserv.paho.org

 *            Corporate influences on epidemiology*

*
Neil Pearce
Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University Wellington Campus -
Wellington, New Zealand*

*International Journal of Epidemiology - Volume 37, Number 1, February 2,
2008

*

Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 46-53; doi:10.1093/ije/dym270
[Abstract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/1/46>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/46>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/46>

"…Corporate influences on epidemiology have become stronger and more
pervasive in the last few decades, particularly in the contentious fields of
pharmacoepidemiology and occupational epidemiology. For every independent
epidemiologist studying the side effects of medicines and the hazardous
effects of industrial chemicals, there are several other epidemiologists
hired by industry to attack the research and to debunk it as 'junk science'.
In some instances these activities have gone as far as efforts to block
publication. In many instances, academics have accepted industry funding
which has not been acknowledged, and only the academic affiliations of the
company-funded consultants have been listed.

These activities are major threats to the integrity of the field, and its
survival as a scientific discipline. There is no simple solution to these
problems. However, for the last two decades there has been substantial
discussion on ethics in epidemiology, partly in response to the
unethical conduct
of many industry-funded consultants. Professional organizations, such as the
International Epidemiological Association, can play a major role in
encouraging and supporting epidemiologists to assert positive principles of
how science should work, and how it should be applied to public policy
decisions, rather than simply having a list of what not to do…."

Joanna Haas

*Commentary: Epidemiology and the pharmaceutical industry: an inside
perspective*
IJE Advance Access published on January 9, 2008
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 53-55; doi:10.1093/ije/dym264
[Extract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/37/1/53>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/53>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/53>

'…..Neil Pearce's impassioned comments on 'Corporate Influences on
Epidemiology'1<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/53#B1%23B1>are
designed to raise awareness of industry activities
that he believes 'are major threats to the integrity of the field, and its
survival as a scientific discipline'. He argues that 'for every independent
epidemiologist studying the side effects of medicines there are several
other epidemiologists hired by industry to attack the research and debunk it
as "junk science"'. While we recognize his depth of feeling, passion may
nurture bias of its own. The relationship between science and industry is
complex, and the role of epidemiologists in the pharmaceutical industry is
not limited to debunking 'junk science'. Balanced evaluation and discussion
are necessary to provide accurate safety information to physicians and
patients. Unfortunately, such temperate interchanges rarely make headlines and
seldom sell books…"

A White, N Robinson, P Egger, M Stender, K Davis, J Weil, and S Bowlin

*Commentary: Collaboration between industry-based and academic
epidemiologists*
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 56-57; doi:10.1093/ije/dym265
[Extract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/37/1/56>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/56>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/56>

'…..In many instances, academics have accepted industry funding which has
not been acknowledged, and only the academic affiliations of the
company-funded consultants have been listed'. He believes that this and
other unethical practises are major threats to the integrity of
epidemiological research. Although the article is addressed primarily to
academic epidemiologists who consult with industry, there are a number of
issues raised in the article that merit comment from those of us who
practice epidemiology within a large, research-based pharmaceutical
company….'

Sander Greenland

*Commentary: Addressing Corporate Influence Through Ethical Guidelines*
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 57-59; doi:10.1093/ije/dym267
[Extract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/37/1/57>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/57>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/57>

'…..I support declarations of conflict of interest and mandatory disclosure
of funding sources. I think corporate influence by and large seeks to
benefit only one entity: The corporation. That condition is an inevitable
by-product of the competitive environment in which corporations are
naturally selected: A corporation that prospers does so largely because of
its self-aggrandizing traits. Admitting this fact is an essential step
toward addressing the problems to society and individuals that result. But
also needed is an appreciation of the complex interplay of individuals and
units within and among corporate entities, and a realistic appraisal of
conditions within and among corporations…."

Carl V Phillips

*Commentary: Lack of scientific influences on epidemiology*
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 59-64; doi:10.1093/ije/dym266
[Extract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/37/1/59>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/59>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/59>

"…..since I have done a few critical scientific analyses of
epidemiological claims
as part of industry consultancies. More significantly, the anti-scientific
attacks on epidemiology that I have been a victim of have come not from
corporations, or even government, but from those who are thought by most
people to be public health advocates. The players and specific areas of
research are different, but as with corporate influence, influential
organized interests are willing to damage science and even sacrifice
people's health to further their goals…."

Neil Pearce

*Response: The distribution and determinants of epidemiologic research*
Int. J. Epidemiol. 2008 37: 65-68; doi:10.1093/ije/dym268
[Extract]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/37/1/65>
[Full
Text] <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/65>
[PDF]<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/37/1/65>

"…..Epidemiology is commonly defined as the study of 'the distribution and
determinants of disease in human populations'. Thus, epidemiology is
inherently focused on populations, and epidemiologists recognize that
anecdotes about individuals cannot be used to refute evidence about
populations. For example, an anecdote about someone who smoked one pack a
day and lived to be 100, or someone who never smoked and developed lung
cancer anyway, does not refute the evidence that people who smoke a pack a
day get lung cancer at 10 times the rate of non-smokers. Similarly,
anecdotes about individual epidemiologists acting ethically or unethically
do not confirm or refute evidence about general tendencies.

In my commentary about corporate influences on
epidemiology,1<http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/1/65#B1%23B1>
I
was not intending to comment on specific individuals (with the occasional
exception of extreme cases which are too blatant to ignore), but rather to
comment on the distribution and determinants of epidemiologic research,
particularly current corporate influences on what research gets done and how
the findings are received…"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20080205/3f320cc0/attachment-0001.html>