Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:22:24.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Drugs and Corporate Ventriloquism: How to Evaluate Science Policies Intended to Manage Industry-Funded Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Bennett Holman  and
Sally Geislar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Female sexual dysfunction” is the type of contested disease that has sparked concern about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in medical science. Many policies have been proposed to manage industry influence without carefully evaluating whether the proposed policies would be successful. We consider a proposal for incorporating citizen stakeholders into scientific research and show, via a detailed case study of the pharmaceutical regulation of flibanserin (misleadingly marketed as the “female Viagra”), that such programs can be co-opted. In closing, we use Holman’s asymmetric arms race framework as a tool for evaluating policies in industry-funded science.

Type
Explanation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , December 2018 , pp. 869 - 881
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biddle, J. 2007. “Lessons from the Vioxx Debacle: What the Privatization of Science Can Teach Us about Social Epistemology.” Social Epistemology 21:21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bsumek, P. K., Schneider, J., Schwarze, S., and Peeples, J.. 2014. “Corporate Ventriloquism: Corporate Advocacy, the Coal Industry, and the Appropriation of Voice.” In Voice and Environmental Communication, ed. Depoe, S. P. and Peeples, J. A., 21–43. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Buttle, F., and Boldrini, J.. 2001. “Customer Relationship Management in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Role of the Patient Advocacy Group.” Journal of Medical Marketing 1:203–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2005. “Inserting the Public into Science.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision Making, ed. Maasen, S. and Weingart, P., 153–69. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2014. “Financial Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility.” Erkenntnis 79:917–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, K. 2016. “Standardized Study Designs, Value Judgments, and Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research.” Perspectives on Science 24:529–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2010. “Summary Minutes of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs.” US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2013a. “Complete Response Letter from Julie Beitz, Office of Drug Evaluation to Sprout Pharmaceuticals NDA #022526.” Reference 3380370, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2013b. “Statistical Review and Evaluation. Clinical Studies NDA #022526/N0039 Flibanserin.” Reference 3365961, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2014. “Female Sexual Dysfunction Patient-Focused Drug Development Public Meeting.” US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2015a. “Cross-Discipline Team Leader Review NDA 022526.” Reference 3380370, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2015b. “Division Director Review NDA 022526.” Reference 3808082, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2015c. “Flibanserin for the Treatment of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in Premenopausal Women.” Advisory Committee Briefing Document, NDA 022526, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2015d. “Joint Meeting of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drug Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee.” US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Elliott, K. 2015e. “The Voice of the Patient: Female Sexual Dysfunction.” US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Fernandez Pinto, M. 2014. “Philosophy of Science for Globalized Privatization: Uncovering Some Limitations of Critical Contextual Empiricism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 47:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. 2003. “Desire for Profit: Viagra and the Remaking of Sexual Dysfunction.” PhD diss., University of California, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 2004. “Manufacturing Desire: The Commodification of Female Sexual Dysfunction.” Social Studies of Science 34:187–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., and Maskrey, N.. 2014. “Evidence Based Medicine: A Movement in Crisis?” British Medical Journal 348:g3725.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herxheimer, A. 2003. “Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Patients’ Organisations.” British Medical Journal 326:1208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, K. 2014. “The FDA Should Not Approve Sex Drugs for Women.” Morning Call, December 1. http://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-sex-drugs-for-women-hicks-yv-1201-20141201-story.html.Google Scholar
Holman, B. 2015. “The Fundamental Antagonism: Science and Commerce in Medical Epistemology.” PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Holman, B. 2017. “Philosophers on Drugs.” Synthese doi:10.1007/s11229-017-1642-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, B., and Elliott, K.. 2018. “The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science.” Philosophy Compass. doi:10.1111/phc3.12544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, R. 2004. “The Dawn of McScience.” New York Review of Books 51:7–9.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. 2016. “Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Report to David Sackett.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 73:82–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jukola, S. 2017. “On Ideals of Objectivity, Judgment, and Bias in Medical Research: A Comment on Stegenga.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 62:35–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mencken, H. L. 1920. Prejudices. 2nd ser. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Mintzes, B. 2007. “Should Patient Groups Accept Money from Drug Companies? No.” British Medical Journal 334:935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moynihan, R., and Cassels, A.. 2006. Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All into Patients. New York: Nation.Google Scholar
Woloshin, S., and Schwartz, L.. 2016. “US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Flibanserin: Even the Score Does Not Add Up.” JAMA Internal Medicine 176:439–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar