Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Democracy unleashed—unpacking the tooth fairy in drug industry R&D

Nature Biotechnology volume 24, pages 1324–1326 (2006)Cite this article

To the editor:

In recent years, the issue of whether the drug industry equitably contributes to civil society and international health has been the subject of intense controversy and polarized debate1. All too often, the lack of an empirically grounded dialog and creation of uninformed and radicalized 'opinion camps' has reduced complex social and health policy discussions to deterministic, one-sided, black-and-white debates exhibiting the worst aspects of tribalism2. The commentary that appeared in the January issue by Henry Miller entitled “Activism unleashed...and unconscionable” (Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 27–28, 2006) is a perfect, if particularly vehement, example.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: New Drug Applications (NDAs) approved in calendar years 1990–2004 by the FDA, and NMEs subjected to priority regulatory review while offering a significant improvement compared with marketed products in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease.

References

  1. Angell, M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It (New York, Random House, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson, D.S. in The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative (eds., Gottschall, J. & Wilson, D.S.) 20–37 (Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Turner, E.H. PLoS Med. 1, e60 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Graham, J.E. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 173, 1469–1470 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lexchin, J. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 172, 765–767 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brennan, T.A. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295, 429–433 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mintzes, B. & Lexchin, J. Can. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 12, 22–27 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B.H. & Corey, P.N. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 279, 1200–1205 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheiner, L.B. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 46, 605–615 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sheiner, L.B. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 50, 4–9 (1991).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sheiner, L.B. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 61, 275–291 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Trouiller, P. et al. Lancet. 359, 2188–2194 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/pstable.htm

  14. DiMasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W. & Grabowski, H.G. J. Health Econ. 22, 151–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Angell, M. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 171, 1451–1453 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Light, D.W. & Warburton, R.N. J. Health Econ. 24, 1030–1033 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kerber, R. Drug makers target consumers with their ads. Boston Globe March 10 (2004), p. C1.

  18. Corrigan, O.P. Feminist Rev. 72, 40–52 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dwyer, J. Bioethics 19, 460–475 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Paehlke, R.C. Democracy's Dilemma: Environment, Social Equity and the Global Economy (Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell, A.V. Genomics Soc. Policy 1, 86–91 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

V.O. was supported by a research grant from the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center. B.W.-J. is the recipient of grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal. We thank Dimitrios Gripeos (California State University, Long Beach) and Laura Carolina Rios-Mandel (Columbia University) for discussions on meanings and representations of democracy, deliberation and diversity. The ideas expressed in the manuscript reflect the personal views of the authors. V.O and B.W.-J. declare no financial conflicts of interest. V.O and B.W-J contributed equally to this letter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biomarker and Clinical Pharmacology Unit, VA Long Beach Healthcare System, Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Center, and Southern California Institute for Research and Education, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, 90822, California, USA

    Vural Ozdemir

  2. Groupe de recherche en bioéthique & Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succ. centre-ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7, Québec, Canada

    Bryn Williams-Jones

Authors
  1. Vural Ozdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bryn Williams-Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ozdemir, V., Williams-Jones, B. Democracy unleashed—unpacking the tooth fairy in drug industry R&D. Nat Biotechnol 24, 1324–1326 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1324

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1324

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing