Privatization of Science – A Silent Phenomenon
Abstract
Privatization is one of the most significant phenomena and characteristics of contemporary science, but also probably its greatest deviation. Through the growing funding of research by private companies, science has been increasingly used to create profit. It is instrumentalized by being reduced to a marketing tool. In medicine today, most of the applied research is sponsored by the producers of agents and equipment for diagnostics and treatment. Through the manipulation by the methodology of research, result presentation and selective publication, they produce findings which are invalid and biased. The topic of research is less and less relevant for the health and well-being of the population. With the medical science being privatized, the prospects of significant discoveries and progress in disease treatment and prevention are slim. A rise of costs is inevitable, as well as the decrease in the availability. Along with the privatized medical science, the chances for more significant findings and progress in treatment and illness prevention are not good. The growth in expenses is apparent, as well as the downturn in the availability of healthcare services and the erosion of trust in science and scientists. Privatization of science is a phenomenon which is rarely discussed. It deserves greater attention because it can have significant consequences on the nature and the excellence of scientific findings and is relevant in the social and cultural context.
-
1. $95 billion a year spent on medical research (2005). The Associated Press. URL: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9407342/ns/health-health_care/t/billion-year-spent-medical-research/#.WnA_TWnwbIU (2019-10-4)
-
2. A Serbian Sokal? Authors spoof pub with Ron Jeremy and Michael Jackson references. (2013) Retraction Watch. URL: http://retractionwatch.com/2013/09/23/a-serbian-sokal-authors-spoof-pub-with-ron-jeremy-and-michael-jackson-references/ (2019-10-4)
-
3. Angell, M. (2004) The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.
-
4. Bach, B. (2014) The end of antibiotics? Researchers warn of critical shortages. Scope. URL: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/10/13/the-end-of-antibiotics-researchers-warn-of-critical-shortages/ (2019-10-4)
-
5. Barić, H. et al. (2017) Why scholarly publishing might be a bubble. Croat Med J, 58, p. 1-3.
-
6. Bekelman, JE.; Li, Y.; Gross, CP. (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflict of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA, 289, p. 454-465.
-
7. Bodenheimer, T. (2000) Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med, 342, p. 1539-1544.
-
8. Bok, D. (2004) Universities in the marketplace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-
9. Borrell, B. (2009) A medical madoff: anesthesiologist faked data in 21 studies. Scientific American. URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoffanesthestesiologist-faked-data/ (2019-10-4)
-
10. Bowman, JD. (2014) Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. Am J Pharm Educ, 78, p. 176.
-
11. Collier, R. (2009) Medical literature, made to order. CMAJ, 181, p. 254-256.
-
12. Cranney, A. et al. (2002) IX: Summary of meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Endocr Rev, 23, p. 570-578.
-
13. Dane indicted for defrauding CDC (2011). Atlanta Business Chronicle. URL: https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/04/13/dane-indicted-for-defraudingcdc.html (2019-10-4)
-
14. Dorsey, ER. et al. (2009) Funding of U.S. biomedical research and new drug approvals across therapeutic areas. PLoS One, 4, e7015. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007015 (2019-10-4)
-
15. Dorsey, ER. et al. (2010) Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008. JAMA, 303, p. 137-143.
-
16. Evans, I. et al. (2011) Gdje su dokazi? Zagreb: Profil knjiga.
-
17. Every-Palmer, S.; Howick J. (2014) How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J Eval Clin Pract, 20, p. 908-914.
-
18. Fleming, TR, DeMets, DL. (1996) Surrogate end points in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med, 125, p. 605-613.
-
19. Gajski, L. (2009) Lijekovi ili priča o obmani. Zagreb: Pergamena.
-
20. Gajski, L. (2012) Farmaceutska industrija i sukob interesa u medicini. In: Šarić, M., Kovačić, L. (eds.) Zdravstvo u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, p. 87-99.
-
21. Gajski, L. (2014) Medical science serving corporate interests. In: Schweidler, W., Zeidler, KW. (eds.) Bioethik und Bildung. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, p. 155-174.
-
22. Gajski, L. (2015) Što se dogodilo s „Prvo ne škoditi“? H-alter. URL: http://halter.org/vijesti/sto-se-dogodilo-s-prvo-ne-skoditi (2019-10-4)
-
23. Goldacre, B. (2008) Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.
-
24. Gøtzsche, P. (2013) Deadly medicines and organized crime. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
-
25. Groeger, L. (2014) Big Pharma’s big fines. ProPublica. URL: http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma (2019-10-4)
-
26. Healy, D. (2001) The dilemmas posed by new and fashionable treatments. Adv Psychiatr Treat, 7, p. 322-327.
-
27. Healy, D. (2003) Is academic psychiatry for sale? Br J Psychiatry, 182, p. 388-390.
-
28. Hewitt, C. et al. (2005) Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ, 330, p. 1057-1058.
-
29. Horton, R. (2015) Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? Lancet, 385, p. 1380.
-
30. Husten, L. (2013) How heart guidelines based on disgraced research may have caused thousands of deaths. Forbes. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2013/07/31/european-heart-guidelines-based-on-disgraced-research-may-have-caused-thousands-of-deaths/#7c392fca2e33 (2019-10-4)
-
31. Ioannidis, JP. (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2, e124. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 (2019-10-3)
-
32. Ioannidis, JP. (2016) The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 94, p. 485-514.
-
33. Jahnke, A. (2015) Who picks the tab for science? For half a century, the government funded research. Times are changing. Boston University, URL: http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/ (2019-10-3)
-
34. Jochmann, N. et al. (2005) Female specific aspects in the pharmacotherapy of chronic cardiovascular diseases. Eur Heart J, 26, p. 1585-1595.
-
35. Johansen, HK.; Gøtzsche, PC. (1999) Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA, 282, p. 1752-1759.
-
36. Journal of Contradicting Results in Science. URL: http://www.jcrsci.org/browse/index.php/jcrsci/ (2018-1-21)
-
37. Jüni, P.; Rutjes, AWS.; Dieppe, PA. (2002) Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? BMJ, 324, p. 1287-1288.
-
38. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B,; Wilkinson, RG., ed. (1999) The Society and Population Health Reader: Income inequality and health. New York: New Press.
-
39. Kennedy, JV. (2012) The sources and uses of U.S. science funding. The New Atlantis, 36. URL: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding (2019-10-3)
-
40. Kidwell, CS. et al. (2001) Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century. Stroke, 32, p. 1349-1359.
-
41. Kirsch, I. et al. (2002) The Emperor´s new drugs: an analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 23. URL:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228550299_The_Emperor’s_New_Drugs_An_Analysis_of_Antidepressant_Medication_Data_Submitted_to_the_US_Food_and_Drug_Administration (2019-10-3)
-
42. Krimsky, Sh. (2004) Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
-
43. Lang, T. (2004) Twenty statistical errors even YOU can find in biomedical research articles. Croat Med J, 45, p. 361-370.
-
44. Lariviere, V., Haustein, S., Mongeon, P. (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS One, 10, e0127502. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 (2019-10-4)
-
45. Lesser, LI. et al. (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med, 4, e5. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005 (2019-10-3)
-
46. Lexchin, J. et al. (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 326, p. 1167-1170.
-
47. Lundh, A. et al. (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, MR000033. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28207928 (2019-10-3)
-
48. Mandrola, JM. (2016) The best decision may not be what the guidelines say. Medscape. URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860576?nlid=102616_3863&src=WNL_mdplsfeat_160322_mscpedit_card&uac=98463AJ&spon=2&impID=1032383&faf=1 (2019-10-4)
-
49. Marcus, A., Oransky, I. (2015) How the biggest fabricator in science got caught. Nautilus. URL: http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/how-the-biggest-fabricator-in-science-got-caught (2019-10-4)
-
50. McGarity, TO., Wagner, W. (2008) Bending science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
-
51. Milloy, S. (2001) Junk science judo. Washington: Cato Institute.
-
52. Nestle, M. (2016) Another five industry-funded studies with sponsor-favorable results. The score: 145/12. Food Politics. URL: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2016/03/another-five-industry-funded-studies-with-sponsor-favorable-results-the-score-14512/ (2019-10-3)
-
53. Nobel Prize winner calls peer review “very distorted,” “completely corrupt,” and “simply a regression to the mean” (2014). URL: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/03/nobel-prize-winner-calls-peer-review-very-distorted-completely-corrupt-and-simply-a-regression-to-the-mean/ (2019-10-4)
-
54. Pheage, T. (2016-2017) Dying from lack of medicines. Africa Renewal. URL: http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2016-march-2017/dying-lack-medicines (2019-10-4)
-
55. R&D expenditure (2017). Eurostat. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure (2018-01-15)
-
56. Reillon, V. (2015) European Parliament Horizon 2020 budget and implementation. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2015/571312/EPRS_IDA%282015%29571312_EN.pdf (2019-10-3)
-
57. Retraction Watch. URL: http://retractionwatch.com/ (2019-10-4)
-
58. Ribić, V., Kroflin, M. (2016) Što nam je trenutno važnije – vojska ili znanost? URL: http://www.nsz.hr/analize-i-istrazivanja/programski-dokumenti-i-analize/sto-nam-jetrenutno-vaznije-vojska-ili-znanost/ (2019-10-3)
-
59. Rochon, PA. (1998) The evaluation of clinical trials: inclusion and representation. CMAJ, 159, p. 1373-1374.
-
60. Rosenberg, SA. (1996) Secrecy in medical research. N Engl J Med, 334, p. 392-394.
-
61. Schafer, A. (2004) Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis-learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics, 30, p. 8-24.
-
62. Schekman, R. (2013) How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science. The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science (2019-10-4)
-
63. Scherer, RW., Langenberg, P., von Elm, E. (2007) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2, MR000005. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443628 (2019-10-3)
-
64. Sindikat visokog obrazovanja i znanosti Akademska solidarnost. (2012) Deklaracija o znanosti i visokom obrazovanju. Zagreb: Akademska solidarnost.
-
65. Smith, R. (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PloS Med, 2, e138. URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138 (2019-10-4)
-
66. Temple, R. (1999) Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA, 282, p. 790-795.
-
67. Vera-Badillo, FE. et al. (2013) Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol, 24, p. 1238-1244.
-
68. Wakefield, A. (2011) Callous disregard. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
-
69. Welch, HG., Schwartz, L., Woloshin, S. (2012) Overdiagnosed. Boston: Beacon Press.
