Abstract
SummaryAims – There has been recent concern about interactions between academia and the pharmaceutical industry. This article seeks to explore the basis for the current sense of crisis. Methods – The approach taken is a historical one, outlining the origins of the crisis. Results – The analysis outlines the roles that brands, patents, and the control of the scientific literature play in the current marketing of psychotropic drugs, and describes the processes of guideline capture and brand fascism. Conclusions – The analysis makes it difficult to see current interactions between industry and academia as anything but bad for academia. One option that might restore some balance would be to restrict scientific meetings and journals to communications that made all relevant scientific data available, excluding exercises that restrict access to data.Declaration of Interest: In recent years I have had consultancies with, or been a chairman or speaker at symposia for, or received support to attend meetings from Astra-Zeneca, and Lundbeck. I have been expert witness for the plaintiff in the past decade in 15 legal actions involving antidepressants and on patent case, and have been consulted on a much greater number of attempted suicide, suicide, and suicide-homicide cases linked to treatment, in which I have offered the view that the treatment was not involved or have declined to give a view.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference36 articles.
1. Healy D (2006c). Let them eat Prozac. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.healyprozac.com/AcademicStalking/default.htm
2. Psychiatric bed utilization: 1896 and 1996 compared
3. Academic psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry
4. United States Patent (1991). No. 4,988,731. Date of Patent Jan 29th1991.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献