David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The story I shall be exploring is certainly a disturbing one: a drug company funds a large-scale trial of its new AIDS therapy; when the results are unfavorable, the company tries to prevent their being published; when the researchers go ahead with publication anyway, the company seeks millions of dollars in damages; eventually, newspaper headlines tell us it gets zilch, but the arbitration proceedings are private, so beyond that we know - well, zilch; the same year, an action is filed alleging that the firm had manipulated its stock price by misleading the public about the effectiveness of this drug; four years later, with this suit still pending, the company website affirms that previous clinical trials demonstrate the drug's effectiveness. Of course, when you look closely things are more complicated than they seem at first; and anyway, I don't want just to work up a good head of righteous indignation, but to offer you something with real theoretical backbone. So the plan is to sketch an account of what science is and does that suggests how and why the ways in which scientific work is funded can distort or even block its progress, to put this theory to work in the course of an analysis of the troubled history of the trials, clinical and legal, of Immune Response's AIDS drug, Remune, and to conclude with some thoughts about industrial sponsorship of scientific research in the universities.
|Keywords||Research financing Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Douglas Walton & Nanning Zhang (2013). The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (2):173-219.
Jason Borenstein (2011). Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):355-364.
Similar books and articles
Margaret B. Liu (2010). A Clinical Trials Manual From the Duke Clinical Research Institute: Lessons From a Horse Named Jim. Wiley-Blackwell.
Jacek Spławiński & Jerzy Kuźniar (2004). Clinical Trials: Active Control Vs Placebo — What is Ethical? Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):73-79.
Helen Bequaert Holmes (1989). Can Clinical Research Be Both Ethical and Scientific? A Commentary Inspired by Rosser and Marquis. Hypatia 4 (2):156 - 168.
Lawrence Scahill, Mary Solanto & Joseph McGuire (2008). The Science and Ethics of Placebo in Pediatric Psychopharmacology. Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):266 – 285.
Joel Lexchin (2012). Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):247-261.
Maurie Markman (2004). The Research Misconception. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (2):241-252.
Jeremy Sugarman (2004). Using Empirical Data to Inform the Ethical Evaluation of Placebo Controlled Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):29-35.
Laurence J. Hirsch (2002). Conflicts of Interest in Drug Development: The Practices of Merck & Co., Inc. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):429-442.
Nancy F. Olivieri (2003). Patients' Health or Company Profits? The Commercialisation of Academic Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (1):29-41.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #146,511 of 1,140,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #157,514 of 1,140,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?