Biased Scientific Research

When reading about Angell's descriptions of the "scientific" studies done by pharmaceutical companies, I was disgusted, but not surprised. For example, in Chapter 5 she described how AstraZeneca compared their heartburn drug Nexium to Prilosec. However, instead of comparing equal doses of both drugs, they compared 40 milligrams of Nexium to 20 milligrams of Prilosec. This is clearly not a fair comparison, but they still managed to pass it off as scientific through their master marketing schemes.

This reminded me of an article that I recently read in the Atlantic about how widespread bias is in scientific research, particularly in medical science:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

This is a very disheartening article for a biology major like me, who plans to spend the rest of my life either researching or practicing medicine. However, I think that it shows the importance critically reviewing all claims, even those that shroud themselves in the legitimacy of “science.” 

I also think this brings up some of the issues that arise when finances and science are intertwined, which inevitably happens all the time because researchers need funding and companies need researchers. In any profit-driven corporation, there is often a need for certain products but due to financial constraints, these needs go unmet. For example, there is a great need for malaria drugs in impoverished places such as Central and Southern Africa but since drug companies need to make a profit, they do not use their resources to develop drugs that could easily bring an end to rampant yet easily-curable diseases such as malaria. 

However, as Angell points out, drug companies are making more than a marginal profit, but they are still unwilling to make unprofitable drugs because they don't want to disappoint their investors. This seems to me to be the heart of the issue. Drug companies should be held accountable to patients, not investors.