4 ms·

Maybe as a condition of hire, the appicliant, if hired by the FDA, couldn't seek future employment in any aspect of the Pharmacutical industry? I belonged to

Maybe as a condition of hire, the appicliant, if hired by the FDA, couldn't seek future employment in any aspect of the Pharmacutical industry? I belonged to a union that flat out told apprentices that they were forbidden from going through the program and opening up a non-union shop. I've always wondered about the legality of putting conditions on a job? I know the formentioned union still has the clause in it's bylaws, and it's a union in a huge city.

sanderjd 12y ago
It all comes down to the incentives. I doubt the FDA is beating away applicants as it is. If the FDA enacts your proposed policy, what do we do if they can't find qualified applicants?
- littletimmy 12y ago
  Raise the salary.
  - mirimir 12y ago
    The US pharmaceutical industry is too wealthy for that to be workable. The game is to make friends while working at the FDA, and then to cash in. In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. The pharmaceutical industry should play no role in that, and should merely manufacture approved drugs. Edit: Please see The Truth About Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, M.D., formerly an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
    - refurb 12y ago
      In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. Where do the funds for R&D come from? Getting academia to discover drugs is not a workable solution.
      - ska 12y ago
        Academia already does much of the fundamental research. It's mostly the "D" part of the "R&D" that is expensive, and shapes the pharma industry. Some of this could be addressed by making clinical trials cheaper to operate and initialize, but it's always going to be quite expensive.
        refurb 12y ago
        I agree that most fundamental (chemistry, biology) research is done in academia. But fundamental research doesn't deliver new drugs, it only supports discovery. About 24% of new drugs are discovered in academia.[1] The remainder come from industry. I think offloading all discovery to academia, plus the "D" part of R&D would be something academia would struggle with. [1]http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_...
        ska 12y ago
        Sure, a lot of discovery is done in industry too (and, as you note, is supported by academic outputs). But that's not the expensive part which is what I was trying to say -- obviously not clearly enough.
        mirimir 12y ago
        Reforming the current system would be difficult, no doubt. And perhaps it's unworkable. Big pharma also owns academia. Much of the peer-reviewed literature for many drugs has been ghostwritten by industry-funded consultants. Sometimes the authors don't even read their manuscripts, and in some cases haven't been informed of them. Some journals have been addressing this, but it's pervasive. In any case, the current system isn't working. Incentives for fraud far outweigh those for improving public health. And there is virtually no accountability.
CodeWriter23 12y ago
It's a sensible solution to the issue, from a distance. Then there are realities like this: "Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine] gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds. Source: https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.VOD_LsbzdTN https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.VOD... [2011]

sanderjd 12y ago

It all comes down to the incentives. I doubt the FDA is beating away applicants as it is. If the FDA enacts your proposed policy, what do we do if they can't find qualified applicants?

littletimmy 12y ago
Raise the salary.
- mirimir 12y ago
  The US pharmaceutical industry is too wealthy for that to be workable. The game is to make friends while working at the FDA, and then to cash in. In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. The pharmaceutical industry should play no role in that, and should merely manufacture approved drugs. Edit: Please see The Truth About Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, M.D., formerly an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
  - refurb 12y ago
    In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. Where do the funds for R&D come from? Getting academia to discover drugs is not a workable solution.
    - ska 12y ago
      Academia already does much of the fundamental research. It's mostly the "D" part of the "R&D" that is expensive, and shapes the pharma industry. Some of this could be addressed by making clinical trials cheaper to operate and initialize, but it's always going to be quite expensive.
      - refurb 12y ago
        I agree that most fundamental (chemistry, biology) research is done in academia. But fundamental research doesn't deliver new drugs, it only supports discovery. About 24% of new drugs are discovered in academia.[1] The remainder come from industry. I think offloading all discovery to academia, plus the "D" part of R&D would be something academia would struggle with. [1]http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_...
        ska 12y ago
        Sure, a lot of discovery is done in industry too (and, as you note, is supported by academic outputs). But that's not the expensive part which is what I was trying to say -- obviously not clearly enough.
        mirimir 12y ago
        Reforming the current system would be difficult, no doubt. And perhaps it's unworkable. Big pharma also owns academia. Much of the peer-reviewed literature for many drugs has been ghostwritten by industry-funded consultants. Sometimes the authors don't even read their manuscripts, and in some cases haven't been informed of them. Some journals have been addressing this, but it's pervasive. In any case, the current system isn't working. Incentives for fraud far outweigh those for improving public health. And there is virtually no accountability.

CodeWriter23 12y ago

It's a sensible solution to the issue, from a distance. Then there are realities like this: "Today, medical-journal editors estimate that 95 percent of the academic-medicine specialists who assess patented treatments have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, and even the prestigious NEJM [New England Journal of Medicine] gave up its search for objective reviewers in June 1992, announcing that it could find no reviewers that did not accept industry funds. Source: https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.VOD_LsbzdTN https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking-for-big-pharma/#.VOD... [2011]