[Cz-biology] Merck proposal

[Larry Sanger]

This is a valuable comment--thanks, Gareth.

Those in favor of the proposal have been saying that Merck's reputation for
research is solid enough that we can agree to let them add links.  Those
opposed to the proposal have said that Merck's reputation (and maybe, the
entire industry's) for corporate ethics is not perfectly stellar, and that
there are various problems about the usefulness of its research.

Well, what I would be inclined to say, then, is that we will not settle or
announce a "partnership," or anything so formal.  It appears that the
controversy over such a public relationship would not redound to our
benefit.

But this still leaves the question whether we should tell the person who
contacted me whether she may systematically place links to Merck articles on
CZ pages.  Here, I think the question to answer is strictly this: are
Merck's articles, in fact, adequately reliable that we can send our readers
on to them?  You might want to actually look at them, you know, in making
this assessment.

That's the question I put to you.  If your answer is "yes," I will tell her
"yes, but informally, and subject to review by our editors of course."  If
your answer is "no," then I would say: "sorry--you might pass along a list
of links for the use of our editors, but we'd prefer that you not add links
to the Merck material yourself."

--Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cz-biology-bounces at mail.citizendium.org 
> [mailto:cz-biology-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of 
> Gareth Leng
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:02 AM
> To: Biology Workgroup List
> Subject: Re: [Cz-biology] Merck proposal
> 
> 
> I think we need some reality check here. As I understand it 
> we're not  
> talking about using pharmaceutical company text in articles, 
> but about  
> adding, to relevant articles, systematically external links to  
> material published in a very large and well respected compendium. If  
> we don't like any particular link we can simply delete that 
> link, the  
> default would be inclusion. Personally, for article development at  
> least, I would expect that link to be a very valuable starting point  
> for authors, to cross check the comprehensiveness and 
> accuracy of the  
> CZ article.
> 
> I've declared a conflict of interest, my own respect for (and former  
> collaboration with) particular Merck research scientists. Of course  
> its a company and if the pharmaceutical industry didn't put 
> commercial  
> sussess first we wouldn't have large and successful companies  
> generating new drugs. What is forgotten is that the scale of pure  
> research within the pharmaceutical industry is vast, and Merck is a  
> company that employs (literally) thousands of post docs on basic  
> research. These are massive research enterprises, there is a huge  
> pyramid of basic research (and hundreds of millions of dollars spent  
> on research) underneath every single new drug that emerges. These  
> people are not salesmen, - only when the R and D job is done and  
> there's a product do the salesmen come in. My point is that thinking  
> of Merck as about selling drugs is only a part - the Merck manuals  
> aren't sales literature, but literature in support of the R 
> and D, and  
> it just has to be good.
> 
> Actually, we all have conflicts of interest - we may promote  
> particular models of medicine that we happen to be a part of,  
> particular models of education - I promote the value and 
> importance of  
> fundamental research: that is what I do, and of course I will 
> benefit  
> directly or indirectly if the Government funds more of it.
> 
> Ethical issues are tough, and in this case multifacetted. Merck (and  
> the FDA equally) have been heavily criticised over Vioxx  e.g.  
> (http://pmid.us/15470193 <http://pmid.us/15470193> ), this though in  
> my view smacks of hindsight, and criticism on some specific 
> technical  
> issues (e.g. non inclusion of adverse events that occurred after the  
> scheduled trial from the overall statistical analysis) is just  
> wrongheaded. Merck withdrew Vioxx voluntarily, however  
> although Vioxx  
> clearly has a greater cardiovascular risk, it also has clear 
> benefits,  
> and overall the risk/benefit ratio is not clear. The current  
> regulatory advice in the US (FDA) and Canada supports continued  
> marketting of Vioxx (  
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/minutes/2005-4090M1_Fin
al.htm).  
Accordingly it could be argued that Merck is acting unethically in  
continuing to withold Vioxx.

This is not a general defence of pharma. There are many examples of  
outrageously unethical behaviour; notably involving collusion with  
clinicians and (usually) clinical scientists. The blame is not just  
with pharma, but also lies within our own ranks here


So these are complex issues. It's tempting to see pharma links as  
commercially compromised, and we tend not to recognise other conflicts  
of interest in ourselves, but medicine and education too are  
businesses, and have business interests even when funded publicly. The  
fact is that industry is also a massive source of R and D and  
knowledge, and in some areas is a resource that dwarfs that of  
academic research. Sometimes we (academics) need humility in seeing  
that we are not the only experts, and not the only ones with white  
hats, and sometimes our own hats are not so white...




Gareth Leng
Professor of Experimental Physiology
Centre for Integrative Physiology
School of Biomedical Sciences
University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Sciences Hugh
Robson Building George Square Edinburgh EH8 9XD UK

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
with registration number SC005336.


_______________________________________________
Cz-biology mailing list
Cz-biology at mail.citizendium.org
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-biology