My own research suggests that we need to broaden the way in which we conceptualize Conflicts of interest and respond to them. See RodwinM. A., “Physicians' Conflicts of Interest: The Limitations of Disclosure,”New England Journal of Medicine321, no. 20 (1989): 1405–1408.
2.
RodwinM. A., “Conflicts in Managed Care,”New England Journal of Medicine332, no. 9 (1995): 604–607.
3.
RodwinM. A., Medicine, Money and Morals: Physicians' Conflicts of Interest (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
4.
RodwinM. A., Conflicts of Interest and the Future of Medicine: The United States, France and Japan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
5.
RodwinM. A., “Strains in the Fiduciary Metaphor: Divided Physician Loyalties and Obligations in a Changing Health Care System,”American Journal of Law and Medicine2, no. 2 (1995): 241–257.
6.
SageW. M., “Some Principles Require Principals: Why Banning ‘Conflicts of Interest’ Won't Solve Incentive Problems In Biomedical Research,”Texas Law Review85, no. 6 (2007): 1413–1463.
7.
RodwinM. A., Medicine, Money and Morals: Physicians' Conflicts of Interest (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993): 179–211.
8.
Several scholars are now exploring institutional corruption in relation to the pharmaceutical industry and policy industry as part of the research lab project on Institutional Corruption at the Edmund J. Safra Center at Harvard University. They include Lisa Cosgrove, Carl Eliot, Marc-Andre Gagnon, Garry Gray, Aaron Kesselheim, Genevieve Pham-Kanter, Susannah Rose, Sergio Sismondo, and Robert Whitaker available at <http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab>(last visited August 1, 2012).
9.
LessigL., “Two Conceptions of ‘Corruption,’” in Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York: Twelve-Hackette Book Group, 2011): 226–247.
10.
ThompsonD. F., Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995).
11.
For some classic discussion of the pharmaceutical industry see, DowlingH. F., Medicines for Man: The Development, Regulation and Use of Prescription Drugs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970).
12.
TeminP., Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980).
13.
For some more recent critiques see, AngelM., The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It (New York: Random House, 2004).
14.
KassirerJ. P., On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
15.
Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, Manual of Policies and Procedures 6020.3 (2007).
16.
AshburnT. T.ThorK. B., “Drug Repositioning: Identifying and Developing New Uses for Existing Drugs,”Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3, no. 8 (2004): 673–683.
17.
AshburnT. T.ThorK. B., “Drug Repositioning: Identifying and Developing New Uses for Existing Drugs,”Nature Reviews Drug Discovery3, no. 8 (2004): 673–683.
18.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351 (2012).
19.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Hearing Regulations and Regulations Describing Scientific Content of Adequate and Well Controlled Clinical Investigations, Federal Register35, no. 90 (1970): 7250.
20.
See, HiltsP. J., Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).
21.
CarpenterD., Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
22.
See, e.g., Interagency Coordination in Drug Research and Regulation: Hearing Before the Subcomm on Reorganization and Int'l Org. of the Comm. on Gov't Operations, 88th Cong. (1963)
23.
Examination of the Pharmaceutical Industry.: Hearing on Section 3441 and Section 966 Before the Subcomm. on Health and the Comm. on Labor and Pub. Welfare, 93rd Cong. (1974)
24.
Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry.: Hearing on Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry. Before the Subcomm. on Health of the Senate and the Subcomm. on Admin. Practice and Procedure and the Comm. on Labor & Pub. Welfare, 94th Cong. (1976)
25.
Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharmaceutical Industry.: Hearing on Preclinical and Clinical Testing by the Pharm. Indus. Before the Subcomm. on Health of the Senate and the Subcomm. on Admin. Practice and Procedure and the Comm. on Labor & Pub. Welfare, 94th Cong. (1975)
26.
Drug Regulation Reform Act of 1978: Hearing on S. 2755 Before the Subcomm. on Health and Scientific Research and the Comm. on Human Resources, 95th Cong. (1978).
See, e.g., ChanA. W.HróbjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GøtzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–5465.
29.
KesselheimA. S.MelloM. M., “Confidentiality Laws and Secrecy in Medical Research: Improving Public Access to Data on Drug Safety,”Health Affairs26, no. 2 (2007): 483–91.
30.
RodwinM. A., “The Need for Independent Drug Testing for the FDA to Evaluate Whether to Grant Marketing Approval,”Saint Louis University Law Review6, no. 1 (2012).
31.
21 C.F.R. §§ 310.3–5.21; 21 C.F.R. § 314.80.
32.
SasichL. D.LurieP.WolfeS. M., The Drug Industry's Performance in Finishing Post-marketing Research (Phase IV) Studies: A Public Citizen's Health Research Group Report, available at <http://www.citizen.org/hrg1520>(last visited August 1, 2012).
33.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 (2007). The problems with the previous approach to pharmacovigilance are carefully described in, Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007).
34.
BehrmanR. E.BennerJ. S.BrownJ. S., “Developing the Sentinel System – A National Resource for Evidence Development,”New England Journal of Medicine364, no. 6 (2011): 498–499.
35.
BodenheimerT., “Uneasy Alliance: Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry,”New England Journal of Medicine. 342, no. 20 (2000): 1539–42.
36.
AngellM., The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It (New York: Random House, 2004):.
37.
For a thorough analysis of problems of drug safety see, AvornJ., Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004):.
38.
DavidsonR. A., “Source of Funding and Outcomes of Clinical Trials,”Journal of General Internal Medicine1, no. 3 (1986): 155–58.
39.
Als-NielsenB.ChenW.GlundC.KjaergardL., “Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?”JAMA290, no. 7 (2003): 921–928.
40.
HeresS.DavisJ.MainoK.JetzingerE.KisslingW.LeuchtS., “Why Olanzapine Beats Risperidone, Risperidone Beats Quetiapine, and Quetiapine Beats Olanzapine: An Exploratory Analysis of Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of Second-Generation Antipsychotics,”American Journal of Psychiatry163, no. 2 (2006): 185–194.
41.
LangrethRobert, “Drug Marketing Drives Many Clinical Trials,”Wall Street Journal, November 16, 1998.
42.
PietersT., “Marketing Medicines through Randomized Controlled Trials: The Case of Interferon”BMJ317, no 7167(1998): 1231–1233.
43.
GreenlandP.Lloyd-JonesD., “Critical Lessons from the ENHANCE Trial”JAMA299, no. 8 (2008): 953–955.
44.
The FDA tried to prevent drug firms from disseminating articles on of-label uses of their products. Drug firms and the Washington Legal Foundation sued the FDA alleging that the FDA policy constituted an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech. Federal appellate courts held that the FDA policy was unconstitutional. For a summary of the WLF challenge and related cases and current status of the law, see Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, 202 F.3d 331 (2000) FDA, Decision in Washington Legal Foundation v. Henney, Federal Register65, no. 52 (2000): 14286–88, FDA Docket No. 98N-0222.
45.
DwanK.AltmanD. G.ArnaizJ. A.BloomJ.ChanA. W., “Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias,”PLoS ONE3, no. 8 (2008): e3081.
46.
ChanA. W.HrobjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GotzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–2465.
DickersinK., “The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence,”JAMA263, no. 10 (1990): 1385–1389.
50.
DickersinK.SchererR.LefebvreC., “Identifying Relevant Studies for Systematic Reviews,”British Medical Journal309 (1994): 1286–1291.
51.
DickersinK., “How Important Is Publication Bias? A Synthesis of Available Data,”AIDS Education and Prevention9, no. 1 (1997): 15–21.
52.
SchererR. W.LangernbergP.Von ElmE., “Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts,”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2, no. MR000005 (2007).
53.
VedulaS. S.BeroL.SchererR. W.DickersinK., “Outcome Reporting In Industry-Sponsored Trials of Gabapentin for Of-Label Use,”New England Journal of Medicine. 361, no. 20 (2009): 1963–1971.
ZarinD.IdeN. C.TseT., “Issues in Registration of Trials,”JAMA297, no. 3 (2007): 2112.
56.
DeAngelisC. D.DrazenJ. M.FrizelleF. A., “Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,”JAMA292, no. 11 (2004): 1363–1364.
57.
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, U.S. Public Law 110–85 (2007).
58.
PrayleA. P.HurleyM. N.SmythA. R., “Compliance With Mandatory Reporting of Clinical Trial Results On ClinicalTrials.gov: Cross Sectional Study,”BMJ344 (2011): d7373.
59.
LawM. R.KawasumiY.MorganS. G., “Despite Law, Fewer Than One in Eight Completed Studies of Drugs and Biologics Are Reported on Time on ClinicalTrials.gov,”Health Affairs30, no. 12 (2011): 2338–2345.
60.
ChanA. W.HrobjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GotzscheP. C.AltmanD. G., “Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Comparison of Protocols to Published Articles,”JAMA291, no. 20 (2004): 2457–2465.
61.
MathieuS.BoutronI.MoherD.AltmanD. G.RavaudP., “Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials,”JAMA302, no. 9 (2009): 977–984.
62.
ZarinD.IdeN. C.TseT., “Issues in Registration of Trials,”JAMA297, no. 3 (2007): 2112–2120.
DoshiP.JeffersonT.Del MarC., “The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience,”PLoS Med9, no. 4 (2012): E1001201.
66.
RodwinM. A.AbramsonJ., “Clinical Trials as a Public Good,”JAMA308, no. 9 (2012): 871–872.
67.
TurnerE. H., “A Taxpayer-Funded Clinical Trials Registry and Results Database,”Public Library of Medicine1, no. 3 e60 (2004): 180–182.
68.
OldaniM. J., “Thick Prescriptions: Toward an Interpretation of Pharmaceutical Sales Practices,”Medical Anthropology Quarterly18, no. 3 (2004): 325–356.
69.
LarkinJ. M., “Optimizing Resource Allocations with a Strategic Focus: An Accounting Perspective,”Journal of Business Case Studies, 5, no. 5 (2009) 55–60.
70.
ZieglerM. G.LewP.SingerB. C., “The Accuracy of Drug Information from Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives,”JAMA273 (1995): 1296–1298.
71.
LexchinJ., “What Information Do Physicians Receive from Pharmaceutical Representatives?”Canadian Family Physician43 (1997): 941–945.
72.
“Cinq ans d'observation et un constat: Rien à attendre de la visite médicale pour mieux soigner,” [Five years of observation and the implications: Don't count on medical detailing to improve patient care] La Revue Prescrire26, no. 272 (2006): 383–89.
73.
BignallJ., “Monitoring Reps in France,”The Lancet344 (1994): 536; European Directive 92/28 EEC, March 31, 1992. Loi N. 94–42 du 18 janvier 1994. R. 5122–11, Code de la santé publique [Law no. 94–42 of January 18, 1994, R.51222–11, Public Health Code]; Décret no. 96–531 du 14 juin 1996 relatif à la publicité pour les médicaments et certains produits à usage humain et modifiant le code de la santé publique; deuxième partie [Decree No. 96–531 of June 14, 1996 relative to publicity for medications and certain other products for human use, modifying the Public Health Code, second part.]; Décrets en Conseil d'Etat, Journal Officiel, 16 juin (1996): 8962–67. Decrees of the Counsel of State. Official Journal June 16 (1996): 8962–67.].
74.
“Charte de la visite médicale, 22 Decembre 2004 [Charter for medical detailers, December 22, 2004]
75.
LoiN.2004–810 du 13 août 2004 relative à l'Assurance Maladie,”Journal Officiel, 17 Aout (2004): 14598–626. [Law No. 204–810 of August 13 2004, relative to health Insurance. Official Journal August 17 (2004)].
76.
Cinq ans d'observation et un constat, 386.
77.
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012)
78.
San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411U.S.1, 41 (1973).
79.
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Planning a Continuing Health Professional Education Institute, Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2010), available at <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12704.html>(last visited August 1, 2012).
80.
SteinmanM. A.BeroL. A.ChrenM. M., “Narrative Review: The Promotion of Gabapentin: An Analysis of Internal Industry Documents,”Annals of Internal Medicine145, no. 4 (2006): 284–293.
81.
U.S. GovernmentAccountability Office, GAO-08-835, Prescription Drugs FDA's Oversight of the Promotion of Drugs for Off-Label Uses (2008).
82.
See also, RodwinM.A., 2011, supra note 1, at 135–137, 151–157.
83.
Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Office of Inspector General, 68 Fed. Reg. 86 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2003). Letter from Max Baucus, Chair, Senate Finance Committee, to Murray Kopelow, ACCME, April 27, 2007. Senate Committee on Finance. Washington, D.C., 2007.
RodwinM. A., “Drug Advertising, Continuing Medical Education, and Physician Prescribing: A Historical Review and Reform Proposal,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics38, no. 4 (2010): 807–815.
86.
RodwinM. A., “Reforming Pharmaceutical Industry-Physician Financial Relationships: Lessons from the United States, France and Japan,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics39, no. 9, no. 4 (2011): 662–670.
87.
“Tap Pharmaceutical Products Inc. and Seven Others Charged with Health Care Crimes; Company Agrees to Pay $875 Million to Settle Charges,”U.S. Department of Justice, available at <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/October/513civ.htm>(last visited August 1,2012).
88.
RodriguezT. A., “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Knowing When to Look a Gift Horse in the Mouth,” in GosfieldA., ed., Health Law Handbook (St. Paul: West Group, 2003).
89.
CosgroveL.KrimskyS.VijayaraghavanM., “Financial Ties Between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry,”Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics75, no. 3 (2006): 154–160.
90.
TeminP., Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the United States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980): 106–120.
91.
MooreD. A.CainD. M.LoewensteinG., Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions from Law, Medicine and Organization Settings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
92.
CainD. M.LoewensteinG.MooreD. A., “The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,”Journal of Legal Studies34, no. 1 (2005): 1–23.
93.
AdamsS. H., The Great American Fraud (New York: P. F. Collier and Son, 1905).
94.
DowlingH. F., Medicines for Man (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970): At 183.
95.
Regarding dialysis, see DryerO., “Journal Rejects Article after Objections from Marketing Department,”BMJ328, no. 7434 (2004): 244.
96.
On drug advertising, see KassirerJ., On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005): 90–91.