3 ms·
Which sounds perfect. But then you have pharma companies paying for research and these studies - but only if they yield favorable results. At least in Europe i
by bipson 10y ago
Which sounds perfect.
But then you have pharma companies paying for research and these studies - but only if they yield favorable results. At least in Europe it is close to impossible doing a study or any other research without having a "sponsor", i.e. a big pharma company who pays for it. And why would they? Because good results are good for business. Everything else? Pay it yourselves. Oh, you had two PhD students working on it for 3 years? Not my problem.
Better than nothing, but a lot of people are screaming for all those unfavorable results, as the available publications obviously only paint a partial picture, one in favor of the sponsors.
- allendoerfer 10y agoBad results can be good for business if it is about a competitor's product.
- hannob 10y agoI agree with everything you said, but it's a different set of problems. Only publishing favorable results should be prevented with preregistration and requirements to publish. Ideally more (or all) pharma research should be done by independent researchers and not by pharma sponsors.
- refurb 10y agoIdeally more (or all) pharma research should be done by independent researchers and not by pharma sponsors. You do realize that pharma might be paying for studies, but independent physicians are actually running them, right?
- allendoerfer 10y agoSo these independent physicians are only paid for by pharma sponsors, but otherwise independent? Like with members of parliament? This concept of independence seems to catch on.