When research becomes PR

Comment Pharmaceutical companies are frequently promoting their products by funding scientific research, writes Peter Donnelly.

Research scientists used to do research purely to find answers. With increased funding from private concerns, however, results sometimes become market orientated.

Several years ago as a laboratory researcher, a team of which I was a part was asked by a private pharmaceutical company to test the efficacy of a new product in fighting a range of micro-organisms. Working within a university, the financial incentive to carry out the work was huge. With the revenue raised, there would be more than enough cash to do research with a surplus that could be ploughed into other projects. There was only one real downside; the company sponsoring the research retained the rights to any and all of the findings of the research.

The product efficacy was quite limited in fighting several species of bacteria. Despite this, the product later went to market. For our research team the incident posed a conundrum. Because we didn't own the rights to our findings, no research paper could be written and submitted for peer review, the life blood for any scientist. At the time, the company involved was implementing an aggressive marketing strategy: a university department carrying out an independent study would lend weight to the ability to sell the product. In the end, our findings were not used in the marketing materials. The product was going to market, with or without our support.

This incident comes to mind regularly because it appears that the number of erroneous incidents relating to science for profit is on the rise. For example, recently it was widely reported in the US media that three leading psychiatrists from Harvard University had allegedly been underreporting payments they had received from pharmaceutical companies. Although there are differences between the two cases I have described, the central similarity is the impact research from the private sector is having on science and medical research.

The issue has opened a can of worms in the US with calls being made for a nationwide reporting system to be set up that will police drug firms' payments to medical professionals. Only by doing so, they say, can clarity exist about the dangers and benefits of specific drugs introduced in the market and prescribed by medical professionals. No argument has been made for a blanket ban on private money being paid to health and science professionals to promote medicines. Instead, the debate is focusing on how to track who is being paid what. It is all about transparency. The fact that stricter limits are not being proposed on financial contributions by pharmaceutical companies speaks volumes about the current milieu in which science and medical research exists.

It's now become a standard part of the business of science, and scientists and researchers learn this better than anyone. With funding from the public sector decreasing, going private has become necessary to generate enough income to pursue research interests. At least, this is the case for most of the world. The UAE and the wider GCC has a real advantage in this respect. With the price of a barrel of oil remaining high the liquidity available to several of the nations of this region to invest in scientific and medical research is a strong comparative advantage. They can also prevent compromising the integrity of specific areas of research carried out by avoiding receiving investment from the private sector. Unbiased research is not only more ethical, it would also lead to better outcomes and less waste on the promotion and purchase of products of limited value.

Another real benefit here is the fact that truly novel, innovative research can be achieved across a wide range of fields. One of the biggest problems in research backed by private funding is the tight constraints on what can actually be investigated. For example, pharmaceutical companies looking to invest in drug discovery are increasingly hedging their bets. They want to spread risk as much as possible, and will therefore only invest in areas where there is a high chance of a financial return. Untested areas will receive little backing. Their view is that the public sector should invest in these research avenues: the GCC can do exactly this, and to a greater degree than most.

Now, the case of the three Harvard psychiatrists is slightly different, in that they where allegedly receiving money for themselves, and not necessarily to carry out research, but this highlights the growing ambiguity of what is acceptable. It is also something that should be considered carefully by the authorities in the UAE. The number of private clinics opening is growing rapidly and legislation has to cover effectively the professional relationship that exists between physicians, pharmacists and drug manufacturers. There have to be clear, transparent guidelines that protect the public's interests.

For a scientist or medical professional making a profit at the expense of the general health of society is completely unacceptable but it is also generally accepted that it can and does happen. There was a time of course when scientists thought of themselves as above this. They carried out their research under a veil of secrecy in their ivory towers. The very idea of receiving money or gratuities from the private sector was anathema to most scientists. The image of men like Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur was built on the premise that they were doing the work they did to help mankind. It was a noble cause. It still is, but scientists and the work they do are closer than ever to society. Politics and economics have a massive bearing on how scientific research is carried out. Like it or not, private sector money drives the global industry, and it's all about profit.

Ultimately, this situation is not going to change. Although the UAE and several other countries in the region have the financial clout to enter into the research arena, one has to remember that the private sector has the lion's share of the funding and the greatest interest in this sector. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as there is a better level of awareness among scientists and the research community about the rules of the game. With clear and universal guidelines in place there is a lower chance that scientists and medical researchers will find themselves in compromising positions. The integrity of the blossoming research sector in the UAE is at stake.