To a medical historian, especially one who tracks the pharmaceutical industry as Jeremy Greene of Harvard does, last week’s Georgetown conference, “Prescription for Conflict: Should Industry Fund Continuing Medical Education (CME)” must have seemed like a flashback.
In his conference talk, Greene gave some of the history of concerns over such industry influence. He’s also published on the topic. In this article, for example, he cited Pediatrics journal editor Charles D. May, who warned in 1961:
A vicious cycle is created by a mad scramble for a share of the market: the doctor is made to feel he needs more “education” because of the prolific outpouring of strange brands but not really new drugs, produced for profit rather than to fill an essential purpose; and then the promoter offers to rescue him from confusion by a corresponding brand of “education.”
And, while, Senator Chuck Grassley gets a lot of headlines today for his Senate Finance committee investigations into drug company influence on doctors and CME, we may forget the history of past Senate hearings on these issues.
From 1959-1962 Senator Estes Kefauver led historic hearings.
Then, as Greene writes, when there were implications of a firewall between the business and editorial functions of CME:
“…ample evidence of the porousness of these firewalls existed as early as 1976, sufficient to prompt a series of hearings into the subject led by Sen Gaylord Nelson (D, Wisconsin).
…
Despite such hearings, the influence of medical education and communication companies continued to increase throughout the 1970s and 1980s. By the early 1990s, the subject emerged again in another set of hearings–now chaired by Sen Edward Kennedy (D, Massachusetts)–provoked by increasing reports of extravagant marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry.”
He who ignores the past is doomed to repeat it.
In an interview, Greene said the ’70s became a turning point.
In that clip, he used the term MEC – which stands for Medical Education Collaborative – which is an organization that provides continuing medical education.
Correction: Dr. Greene advises that it’s actually MECC – for “Medical Education and Communication Company.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like