This BMJ Editorial of the 30th June 2017 has had a number of responses:
The Editorial was a consideration of Academy of Medical Sciences report ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential harms and benefits of medicines’.
The President of the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Chair of the Report, Professor Sir John Tooke, has submitted this reply:
It is most welcome for Professor Sir John Tooke to set out his further thoughts but I found that what he said did not reassure me about the future of science and so submitted this response:
Written by Peter, 15 July 2017
Submitted as BMJ Rapid Response.
The further thoughts of Professor Sir John Tooke, Chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences report ‘Enhancing the use of scientific evidence to judge the potential harms and benefits of medicines’ are most welcome.
Professor Sir John Tooke does not reassure me that an era of unrealistic medicine and the business of science will change anytime soon. Meantime the NHS is struggling across the United Kingdom and this may be in part due to the promotion of medical interventions whose evidence base lacks the objectivity that we all surely seek.
I would suggest that most of us fully understand the “reminder” from the Academy of Medical Sciences that potential conflicts of interest can come in all forms and not just financial. But like the public I share the view that we should start with potential financial conflicts of interest as evidence has determined that exposure to industry promotional activity can lead to doctors recommending worse treatments for patients Godlee and Freer remind us that we expect this from our elected politicians and in other areas of public life.
The voluntary ABPI Register is not working. Its database is only a little more than half complete. This really does challenge the “E” in EBM.
The pharmaceutical Industry has, over the preceding year, increased payments to healthcare workers for “promotional activities” from £109 million to £116.5 million. This is a major part of Industry budget. Furthermore, we do not know how much may be being paid by device makers and other forms of industry for promotion of their products.
It is welcome, but somewhat “after the bell has rung”, that Professor Sir John Tooke confirms that the Academy of Medical Sciences intends to “review” its approach to public transparency. But one wonders how many “houses” do we need to “get in order” to address this issue effectively? I find myself worrying that it could be like a game of Monopoly that never seems to end.
The most effective and cheapest way to address this matter would be Sunshine legislation. This would avoid multiple, overlapping and generally unsearchable databases of interests.
I would suggest that the reputation of science is at stake as is the balance between benefits and harms for us all.
Roy Porter, who sadly died prematurely was considered as one of the United Kingdom’s finest historians of science and health. He ends “Madness: A Brief History “ with a teasing question: ‘Is folly jingling its bells again?’