Prof. Dominique Tobbell of the University of Minnesota has
contributed Pills, Power, and Policy: The
Struggle for Drug Reform in Cold War America and Its Consequences. She
makes two basic points about our struggle today to reform drug policy, in a
direction that brings pharmaceutical manufacture, research, and marketing
better into line with public health and public interest. The first point is
that this struggle is not new; basically the same issues have recurred ever
since the end of World War II. The second point is that the pharmaceutical
industry has never waged this battle against what it considers burdensome government
regulation on its own; it has always had allies among medical organizations and
academic physicians who had a strong interest in defending the status quo.
Prof. Tobbell points out that by the mid-1960s, the drug
industry had achieved an impressive enough record in fighting off government
regulation that the tobacco industry turned to Pharma for advice and help.
During all those years, medical practitioners were primed by the AMA to fear
the bogeyman of socialized medicine, and academic physicians worried about
excessive federal influence over research policies. It was easy to get these
fellow travelers on board when Pharma wrapped itself in the mantle of “free
enterprise” and presented a less-regulated industry to Congress and to the
American public as a bulwark against communism.
In the heady postwar days, when everyone was thrilled with
the tremendous advances in antibiotic, hormonal, and psychiatric therapy, the
climate of ethical thought was quite different from what reigns today. For
example, Prof. Tobbell describes the efforts at the University of Pennsylvania
to create a training program in clinical pharmacology in 1955: “Norman
Topping, the university’s vice-president in charge of medical affairs, sought
to create an institutional structure that would ensure the program could be
responsive to the industry’s needs. Indeed, Topping believed the new program
should function, essentially, as a service unit for the drug industry.”While
today such a stance would at least raise some eyebrows, apparently no one gave
it a second glance in the 1950s.
Similarly, when the National Academy of Sciences formed the
Drug Research Board in 1963, to help conduct the massive amount of research
required to implement the new FDA amendments Congress had just passed to
require that drugs be shown to be effective as well as safe, some in Congress
looked askance at the inclusion of scientists with strong industry ties. The
Board basically pooh-poohed any such concerns, insisting that it was a great
advantage to have these scientists as part of the effort because of their
inside knowledge and policy smarts. Conflict of interest—who, us?
One theme that I have addressed at some length in earlier
posts—most recently:
http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-bit-of-history-louis-lasagna-and.html--is the impact of the ideology that I prefer to call economism and others call neoliberalism on today’s Pharma policy. Prof. Tobbell was kind enough to respond to an e-mail query, since I noted that the word “neoliberalism” is virtually absent from her volume. Consistent with her thesis, she states that the anti-government-regulation, pro-free-market stance that the drug industry has adopted was present all through the 1950s and 1960s. When neoliberalism/economism entered the US political discourse in a big way in the middle to late 1970s, Pharma was happy to hitch its wagon to that rising star, just as it was happy to jump on the anticommunist bandwagon in earlier decades; but one cannot say that neoliberalism played a major formative role in Pharma’s policy or strategic thinking.
Dominique A. Tobbell, Pills,
Power, and Policy: The Struggle for Drug Reform in Cold War America and Its Consequences.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press/Milbank Books on Health and the
Public, 2012.
1 comment:
Thanks for sharing superb information.
Same Day Delivery Pharmacy
Post a Comment