Marc-André Gagnon — The Political Economy of Pharmaceutical Corruption: The Workings of Corporate Science

The November 17, 2010, seminar was presented by Marc-André Gagnon, Edmond J. Safra Lab Fellow and Assistant Professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University. Marc-André's presentation provided an overview of the political economy of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. He described the shift that has taken place in the last several decades, with pharmaceutical innovation declining even as profits are soaring. The discussion that followed his presentation touched on issues related to bias in medical research, attempts of pharmaceutical companies to "neutralize" researchers who produce unfavorable results, and the practice of ghostwriting.

The topic of bias in medical research prompted some debate among the participants, particularly around the evidence indicating that pharmaceutical companies had attempted to influence researchers whose results were incompatible with those being put forth by the company. While many participants found this practice indefensible, others were concerned that we keep in mind that it is sometimes possible that the research in question is truly deficient. Were such a situation to present itself, they questioned whether the natural conclusion would be that the interested party should never have a role in drawing attention to the deficient research. It was suggested that it would be necessary to know how often substandard research is really the issue when pharmaceutical companies go after these researchers. If it is very rare, then perhaps it should never be okay for the interested party to intervene. However, if it is not a rare occurrence, then it was suggested that perhaps there should remain some avenue by which the interested party may intervene.

With regard to the trend of increasing profits but declining therapeutic innovation, participants questioned the mechanisms that are at work in creating that trend. Some suggested that such a pattern makes sense, given the lifecycle of the product. Others discussed the possibility that this trend demonstrates the development of an improper dependency on the part of the pharmaceutical industry. Instead of primarily being concerned with improved health and disease outcomes, it seems that they are being driven by market incentives--and therefore not producing the kind of innovation one would expect if their dependencies were more properly aligned.

Participants also discussed the widespread practice of ghostwriting in the medical industry, in which multiple doctors will sign off on an article, though it's questionable to what extent they were actually involved in the research or writing of it. Much of the ghostwriting discussion revolved around the possibility of creating a certification for signaling that something was "not-ghostwritten". Participants considered the necessity of creating social meaning around the certification, so that researchers and journals would be eager to adopt a new standard.

In summary, seminar participants explored the issue of medical bias and the role of pharmaceutical companies in attempting to interfere with researchers whose results do not mesh with their own. The notion of proper vs. improper dependencies was considered, as well as the possibility of developing a certification to indicate the absence of ghost-written content in research articles.