Drug studies are often cited as the best exemplars of evaluation design. However, many of these studies are seriously biased in favor of positive findings for the drugs evaluated, even to the point where dangerous effects are hidden. In spite of using randomized designs and double blinding, drug companies have found ways of producing the results they want, including manipulation of treatment, selection of sample, control of data, and calculated publication. Regulatory agencies have been neutralized. We have entered an era when evaluations are controlled by sponsors to produce the findings they want. Evaluations have become too important to be left to the evaluators. Such deceptive practices threaten the integrity of the evaluation field, perhaps its existence. There is no doubt these practices will spread into educational and social evaluation.
Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., Gluud, C., & Kjaergard, L. (2003). Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 921.
2.
Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies. New York: Random House.
3.
Armstrong, D. (2006, May 15). How the New England Journal missed warning signs on Vioxx. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1-2.
4.
Berenson, A. (2006a, May 13). Follow-up study on Vioxx safety is disputed . New York Times, p. B3.
5.
Berenson, A. (2006b, May 31). Merck admits a data error on Vioxx. New York Times, p. C1-2.
6.
Bodenheimer, T. (2000). Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1539-1544.
7.
Braudel, F. (1981, 1982, 1984). Civilization and capitalism: 15th to the 18th centuries (3 vols.). New York: Harper and Row .
8.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
9.
Committee on the Assessment of the U.S. Drug Safety System. (2006). A. Baciu, K. Stratton, & S. P. Burke (Eds.), The future of drug safety: Promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies.
10.
Garattini, S., Bertele, V., & Bassi, L.L. (2003, May 31). How can research ethics committees protect patients better? British Medical Journal, 326, 1199-1201.
11.
Gilpin, R. (1987). The political economy of international relations . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
Glanz, J. (2004, February 18). Scientists accuse White House of distorting facts. New York Times, pp. D1-2.
13.
Harris, G. (2006, September 29). F.D.A. says Bayer failed to reveal drug risk study. New York Times. pp. A1, A9.
14.
House, E.R. (1993). Professional evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Lexchin, J., Bero, L.A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003, May 31). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 326, 1167-1170.
16.
Mathews, A.W. (2005, May 10). Worrisome ailment in medicine: Misleading journal articles. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1-2.
17.
Mathews, A.W. (2006, September 1). Drug firms use financial clout to push industry agenda at FDA. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1-2.
18.
Mayor, S. (2003, May 31). World Medical Association reviews doctors' links with drug companies. British Medical Journal, 326, 1165.
19.
Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003, May 31). Evidence b(i)ased medicine- selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. British Medical Journal, 326, 1171-1173.
20.
Moynihan, R. (2003a, May 31). Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 1: Entanglement. British Medical Journal, 326, 1189-1192.
21.
Moynihan, R. (2003b, May 31). Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors and drug companies. 2: Disentanglement. British Medical Journal, 326, 1193-1196.
22.
Pear, R. (2004, February 22). Taking spin out of report that made bad into good health. New York Times, pp. D1-2.
23.
Pollack, A. (2006, September 12). Stanford to ban drug makers' gifts to doctors, even pens. New York Times, p. C2.
24.
Pollack, A., & Abelson, R. (2006, May 22). Why the data diverge on the dangers of Vioxx. New York Times, pp. C1, 5.
25.
Ryan, A. (2004). Foreword to E. R. House: The role of the evaluator in a political world. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation , 19(2), 1-16.
26.
Wolfe, A. (2006, July/August). Why conservatives can't govern. Washington Monthly, pp. 15-16.
27.
Zimmerman, R., & Tomsho, R. (2005, May 26). Medical editor turns activist on drug trials. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-2.
