Whistleblower on Medical Research Fraud: 'Positive Results Are Better for Your Career'

[A.B.]

In an interview, whistleblower Peter Wilmshurst discusses how pressure from Big Pharma corrupts research into new medicines and leads companies to cover up fraudulent data. He says he has no regrets about taking on an entire industry.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...blower-doctor-peter-wilmshurst-a-1052159.html

 

[Chrisb]

It would be interesting also to have a discussion on "regulatory capture", but one can perhaps sail too close to the wind.

 

[user9876]

If what he is saying is its better for your career then its not pressure from some 'big phama entity' but its individuals looking to take advantage themselves. Same with academics who seem just as likely if not more likely to spin results.

The 'big pharma' argument always seems rather simplistic in that it doesn't look at the reward and regulation systems within a company. Companies will often have a culture but this changes. They are staffed by individuals with those high up often very concerned with their career.

 

[WillowJ]

SPIEGEL: Is research fraud like this widespread?

Wilmshurst: I can't tell you exactly what percentage of the trials are flawed. But I think the problem is far bigger than you imagine. And it is getting worse.

SPIEGEL: Why?

Wilmshurst: Because research is getting more important for a doctor's career, and it is so easy to manipulate data, conceal it or fabricate it. Or make unimportant research look like a huge success.

 

[alex3619]

If what he is saying is its better for your career then its not pressure from some 'big phama entity' but its individuals looking to take advantage themselves.

Being offered huge cash rewards by pharma for getting results they like, and quashing negative results, is corruption. Its about a corrupt system though, researchers and pharma together. While I understand that doctors and others who observe this are afraid to come forward, they are also part of the problem.

This is too big for individuals to fight. Its systemic corruption. The global medical profession, or national governments, need to get together and work out a path.

Let me add that blame and responsibility are two different things. While the blame stick should not be pointed at too many, there is a colossal web of responsibility here, and extends even to media and the general public. If the public tolerates it then it might not stop, because the media and politicians will be less concerned and do less.

Let me also add that this does not mean these companies always and completely act like this. Just that the practice appears to be very widespread and very tolerated.

 

[alex3619]

Wilmshurst: Yes, so there also have to be more fundamental changes. Since it's the money of the pharmaceutical companies that controls the researchers, it would be important to put a barrier between the company and the scientific investigators. The company could pay the money that is needed to do a study to an independent body, e.g. the Department of Health. The Department of Health then suggests which researcher could do the study, and when the company agrees, pays out the money. So there is no direct contact between the company and the researcher.

This is part of the mix of options I was looking at for my book. Its still subject to corrupt practices, but it becomes harder to do.

 

[Chrisb]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

Here is another case.

 

[user9876]

Being offered huge cash rewards by pharma for getting results they like, and quashing negative results, is corruption. Its about a corrupt system though, researchers and pharma together. While I understand that doctors and others who observe this are afraid to come forward, they are also part of the problem.

This is too big for individuals to fight. Its systemic corruption. The global medical profession, or national governments, need to get together and work out a path.

Let me add that blame and responsibility are two different things. While the blame stick should not be pointed at too many, there is a colossal web of responsibility here, and extends even to media and the general public. If the public tolerates it then it might not stop, because the media and politicians will be less concerned and do less.

Let me also add that this does not mean these companies always and completely act like this. Just that the practice appears to be very widespread and very tolerated.

My point is it is individuals who are setting up the incentive schemes to meet their career objectives. Companies have culture but don't do things individuals in them do. Incentive schemes change culture - that is why they are there.

I would say that short termism in the stock market is to blame but other industry segments don't have the same problems. Perhaps it is the short termism in the stock market combined with exec incentive schemes and that the drugs market has become a market for lemons (i.e. hard to detect good product from bad) but in reverse so bad product pushing up to the best prices.

My point however is we or regulators need to think through the complexities of the market and individual roles not just say of bad pharma.