See Inside
The pharmaceutical industry funnels money to prominent scientists who are doing research that affects its products--and nobody can stop it
This article was originally published with the title Is Drug Research Trustworthy?.
See what we're tweeting about
sciencegoddess An iphone photo I took of @NASA ISS Mission Control ended up in Business Insider. http://t.co/yMUXoTnW6o
DNLee5 Good question, #curlyhairmafia what say you? @DrRubidium @LalSox https://t.co/ZMpOqigsIi sciencegoddess Thanks! Mission control for the #ISS is very fascinating! @SpaceLauren @MicrobeLover
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Rights & Permissions
33 Comments
Add CommentHow Government Money is Undermining Science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe government funnels money to prominent scientists who are doing research that affects its interests—and nobody can stop it
Its worth reading Ben Goldacres book (Bad Pharma)on this subject and wider aspects of the problems associated with the drug industry and evidence based medicine. Unfortunately I've lent it to someone so cant give any more details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been trying to expose this issue for years. Bravo on your bravery in taking on such a difficult issue that can make for very very powerful enemies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI highly recommend reading "White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine" by Dr. Carl Elliot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWasn't there another article in Sci-am just a couple weeks ago spouting how we need to get private industry involved in our universities. Of course they have for years. Just like Congress, Lobbiest are not the problem but congress persons who take their money and use it incorrectly are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNagnostic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seemed to have figured out only a third of the equation. Your statement should be rewritten as "The government funnels money to prominent scientists who are doing research that affects the interests [of drug companies, research scientists, and NIH employees]-—and nobody can stop it."
Why is the NIH is failing to enforce ethics laws? Could it be the influence of the revolving door? Or is this function of the NIH simply underfunded? Whether or not the laws are being enforced is independent of if laws are being broken -- not to mention the bogus research resulting from the conflicts of interest.
This is an excellent piece of investigative journalism by Professor Seife and his students. I hope this results in a criminal investigation of NIH and others. There are a lot of names of people in this article who are not going to be happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised there are so few comments.
Not to defend such terrible acts of defiance for greed, however, the regulations are very difficult and most physicians who do research but mainly treat patients are not provided the ample training and education involved in these regulations which are hard to navigate. Most of us have research coordinators to help. Lastly governance should never be within the wall of organization to which you are reviewing/overseeing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@drafter, I think these are not either or situations. By example, I think the person offering a bribe can be seen as as much of the problem as is the one who is accepting the bribe.
You get what you vote for. Big, unaccountable government is popular these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearch done with donated money should be publicly owned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople walk for a cure when really, what they get is outrageously expensive, dangerous and ineffective treatments. All 6 of the products listed below are J&J patented, and you can expect to pay higher insurance rates because of these products.
Diabetes -Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation-1970-Rezulin-Artificial pancreases –walk –significant increase in diagnosis since founding of charity.
Cancer-American Cancer Society- 1913-Velcade-Zytiga-walk-significant increase in diagnosis since founding of charity.
Autism-Autism Speaks, Cure Autism Now- 1995-Risperdal-arbaclofen -walk- significant increase in diagnosis since founding of charity.
This is a huge problem, and the article does a fantastic job of explaining the risks. Because Andrew Wakefield took the money of some people who wanted to sue a drug maker for their children's genetic disorders, there are now thousands of people who erroneously believe that vaccines cause autistic spectrum disorders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that virtually all of these factors involving scientific bias and corruption come down to the fact that modern medicine is primarily a business rather than a service -enabled by a willing and conforming government with problematic ties to the medical industry. Any huge, self-regulating business like orthodox medicine is going to protect its massive profits with deception and other unethical means. This explains, for instance, why almost all the anti-supplement propaganda is aimed at protecting their cash interests rather than promoting what is best for the public (see http://www.supplements-and-health.com/dietary-supplements-risks.html ).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI worked with a Drug company in India 4 decades back. My experience was not bad at all. But may be it was 4.5 decades back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeek, I haven't followed the Wakefield story as closely as I have that of thimerosal. But I am aware that Wakefield's co-author on that controversial paper, John Walker Smith, was exonerated by the British legal system. In the words of the judge, there had been "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh btw, here's something else that the NIH (along with the main stream media in between pharma commercials) has ignored -- Poul Thorsen's disappearance. Thorsen, who disappeared with a million dollars of NIH money after being indicted by a federal grand jury. Thorsen, who produced the fraudulent study that the IOM and others cited in concluding that vaccines did not cause autism.
It’s been decades since Congress decided that vaccine makers were too important to be allowed to fail and therefore should not ever be held accountable. People didn’t care because the majority were lucky enough that their children weren’t vaccine injured. Did they think the harm was going to stop with the vaccine injured? Stupid immoral American people are getting what they deserve.
Look, there is zero link between vaccines and autism. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada. Wakefield's "study" has been disproved so many times that it isn't even funny. Anti-vaxxers should be prosecuted or forced to be vaccinated, because they put people like my immunocompromised mother at risk by reducing herd immunity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did I miss the point that it is Big Pharma that is the problem, not Big Gov, per se.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe actual case for the problem is that under Reagan, the goal was to cut government funding of universities, the "bastion of liberals", in order to allow big commercial interests to buy university loyalties and thereby limit the power and influence of liberal ideas.
The point the article illustrates is that bad science results when money is allowed to control, influence and corrupt.
The article, probably interesting, is too long. All comments miss the obvious: all people are greedy. How quickly people will fall for money is dependent on the amount of money. It is my opinion that the risk is less of a deterrent. People are so greedy and arrogant that they are blind for the risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no solution.
Now go and do the same identical study of the grant system for E=GREEN research . .. the Universities are paid for results that support more grants - NASA was a past master of this game in the [now Climate change] global warming scam. Computer model data sets are modified and then the data hidden from peer review.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext all the "SCIENTISTS" ignore the Scientific method and create a new way of validating findings - it is called the "CONSENSUS OF SCIENTISTS" - Then follow the money to the Universities and then review the qualifications of these so named "SCIENTISTS" Humm climate study is now part of liberal arts PhD expertise?
Geek, I'll not waste any more time on you or your kind, beyond this post. This whole topic SHOULD be being argued in a court of law. Oh wait a minute, Congress has said that vaccine makers (the only industry given such priviledge as far as I'm aware) can not be sued for harm done, even in the even of a known and preventable design defect. If it's an argument based on authority that you're interested in, may I suggest you like into what the late Dr. Healy had to say about the matter. (“...public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are "susceptible" to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.”) She was head of the National Institute of Health, and video of her is available on the net.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobin Nemeth
Best compliments to both Charles Seife and Scientific Amarican Editors for this story, I am going to make perfect, at least regarding osteoporosis. What accounts for the reason neither Wyeth nor all other drug producers are spreading among physicians around the world Osteoporotic Constitution-Dependent Inherited Real Risk of Osteoporosis, healed under Blue Therapy, thus preventing osteoporosis occurrence? We have illustrated it in the recent article: Sergio Stagnaro and Simone Caramel (2012). Quantum Therapy: A New Way in Osteoporosis Primary Prevention and Treatment. Journal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences, (27 June 2012) | doi:10.1038/ejcn.2012.76, http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ejcn.2012.76. PMID:22739250 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher].
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHiding the truth by non scientific interests, like certain pharmaceutical ones, is not clever because “finding” is one of the fundamental forces of science. Brave and clever investigators, like Charles Seifer, do not hesitate to venture in dangerous cliffs where truth has been thrown. Their ultimate interest is to repel the frontier of ignorance, bias, delusion, dream, religion, fiction… This is science of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a medical practitioner, I appreciate innovation in drugs and I appreciate Seifer’s efforts to refine, at the base, pharma propaganda that pervade our medical journals and conferences where, I must declare, I consumed meals offered by many pharma lobbies. Even Scientific American, who contributes to denounce abuses, receive pharma contibutions for pub but, by the way, it is openly declared. Scrutinizing multiple societal investments is now necessary to estimate the validity of science which is “still in evolution” and this bring us to face another challenger of science : paradox.
Let me make a suggestion: The next time all you big Pharma haters get indigestion, refuse to take those H2 receptor blockers or proton pump inhibitors. Wait for that ulcer to mature and ask for a vagotomy and pyloroplasty, or gastric antrectomy, the most common surgeries performed only 30 years ago. Better yet, stop vaccinating your kids. Then let's watch natural selection at work. I'm all for letting you improve the species by cleaning up the gene pool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with nagnostic, the bigger problem is science purchased by big government. There are no privately funded scientists studying climate variability. Consequently, we can't trust a bit of the "science" being produced on the subject.
Why are Big Pharma and government being blamed? Why isn't the lack of ethics and lack of adherence of scientific method of the scientists bought not being highlighted. That is the problem. Why do we need NIH to monitor scientists and companies? Why? I'll answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe live in a country where people will do whatever they want unless stopped by an outside force; kind of like Newton's third law of motion for morals and competence.
Sorry, it's Newton's First Law not Third.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis corruption is nothing new. Read "The Drug Story", 1949, by Morris A. Bealle, and "Naked Empress", 1982, (as well as other works) by Hans Ruesch. These are but two of many books detailing the deception and deceit of the pharmaceutical industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a good article, but the problem is hardly new. Unhealthy relationships between researchers / regulators / drug companies / practicing doctors was showcased 20 years ago in the movie "The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford. Not much has changed except that the dollar amounts are bigger and the linkages are more tangled. Oh yes, and companies can now contribute unbelievable amounts of money to politicians through PAC's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is enough money in play, someone will figure out a way to subvert the process.
The worst part is that BIO-IDENTICAL estrogen derived from wild yams is far superior to PREgnantMAReurinIN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bio-identical estrogen has all 3 variants of estrogen that the human body makes. Identical variants.
Premarin has 15 variants, and only 2 are usable by the human body. Some of the Premarin variants are so strong that they are virtually poison.
I fear some of you have stopped unfortunately his road at Newton and Cartesio! Why do not speak about no-local realm, quantum biophysical semeiotics is based on? www.semeioticabiofisica.it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince ever, I have honestly recognised that a lot of famous drug producers, both italian and foreigner, have been helping me in publishing my CLINICAL researches in physical semeiotics, during the past 5 decades. However, my J'Accuse against the silence about DM, CVD, Cancer, Osteoporosis, a.s.o., Constitution-Dependent Inherited Real Risk - conditio sine qua non of Pre-Primary, according to the Manuel's Story http://www.sisbq.org/qbs-magazine.html, and Primary Prevention of the most common an dangerous disorders, will continue un the exclusive interest of the suffering mankind.
I commend your professional restraint in hesitating to make accusations. However, there is ample evidence (dozens of books and articles over the last decade) that ethical oversight of research is sloppy, at best, and completely corrupt in many ways and at many levels. In my opinion, and I have been studying and writing about this issue since the 1990s, the problem begins with physicians, many of whom are ethically challenged. Even the honest ones often fail to recognize their conflicts of interest and delude themselves as to their ability to resist influence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the level of one's own personal physician, I would urge all patients to demand information and care that is not tainted by drug company or device manufacturer money. A good physician will acknowledge that is hard to do, but will at least make an attempt.
Ugh. Each and everyday, as I get older, the world's true colors are not so colorful anymore. All I see is black, white, and the smell of filthy money. The world is not as I viewed it when I was younger. now, the world is all about the rectangular dollar. What? You need help? Sorry. You need money in order for me to care now... *someones whispers*: here is your sign: reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe, the Global Alliance of Publication Professionals (www.gappteam.org), are concerned to read that Seife seems to confuse ghostwriting with medical writing support. They are not the same thing. Ghostwriting is what happens when those who contribute to a published article are not mentioned in the article. This is widely agreed to be unethical because of the lack of transparency in the way the article was written.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMedical writing support is what happens when a professional medical writer assists an academic author with the preparation of an article. If that relationship is transparently disclosed, it is not ghostwriting. It's not clear why Seife feels the need to suggest there is something wrong with medical writing support, and imply that it is the same thing as ghostwriting, by enclosing the phrase in scare quotes.
Medical writing support is in fact a necessary and ethical part of ensuring that clinical research gets published, and research evidence shows that there are many benefits to involving professional medical writers in the dissemination of research findings. Those who wish to know more about these issues may be interested in a recent editorial we have written, which can be found at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.1185/03007995.2012.739152
Adam Jacobs, on behalf of fellow GAPP members Karen Woolley, Art Gertel, Gene Snyder, and Cindy Hamilton.
Most of us think we would make more conscious decisions than Lindsay, the NIH, and the medical world as is but none of us have been infected with the greed for status and money which is prevalent in the medical world. I find it unfortunate that boards need to regulate doctors. Doctors have enough schooling that they should know if they want to pursue a certain research path and if things are monitored through social media they will be able to continue on with their research if patients see the need for it. Patients often know what they need for the ailments, especially if they are chronic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this