Glaxo Announcement Wont End Conflicts of Interest
GlaxoSmithKline broke with industry practice and announced that it will no longer pay scientists to promote its drugs, reports the New York Times.
By Fred Guterl
This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
GlaxoSmithKline broke with industry practice and announced that it will no longer pay scientists to promote its drugs, reports the New York Times. In an industry rife with conflicts of interest, this move is welcome news for consumers.
It is unlikely, however, to have much effect. Entanglements between researchers and drug companies are thick. Drug firms have many ways of enriching favored doctors and researchers—they include them as members of lucrative speakers bureaus, provide ghostwriting services for peer-reviewed papers, and pay big consulting fees. “Peer-reviewed journals are littered with studies showing how drug industry money is subtly undermining scientific objectivity,” wrote journalist Charles Seife his story “Is Drug Research Trustworthy,” an investigation published in the December 2012 issue of Scientific American, and which we have brought in front of our paywall here for a short period of time.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
