我要吃瓜

Citation

De Andrade M (2010) 'Pharmafilliation': A case study. British Sociology Association Medical Conference 2010, Durham,UK, 01.09.2010-03.09.2010. https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/20686/MedSoc2010_Paper_Abstracts_v3.pdf

Abstract
If regulators are to fulfil their mission of protecting and promoting public health, then it might be expected that they act as dependable, authoritative decision-making bodies. Guided by the assumption of accountability, calls for transparency and an overriding obligation to act with scientific integrity, patients, medical practitioners, and the government should trust that regulators ensure proper standards in the practice of medicine. This article explores why this trust is sometimes misplaced by examining a case study which traces the actions of the General Medical Council's (GMC) handling of claims of scientific misconduct over the osteoporosis drug, risedronate (Actonel). Numerous internal and public documents were analysed, and interviews and Freedom of Information requests supplemented documentary research. The analysis exposes the somewhat farcical and cumbersome processes of regulation employed by the agency and highlights its existence as an exonerating body failing to safeguard public health. It identifies three concerns: the time taken to deal with the complaint and the way in which it was handled; a lack of attention to the primary complaint; and a failure to recognise and act upon behaviour the GMC had previously condemned. Furthermore, it reveals an area of ‘regulation' that is unregulated: it is not clear whether scientific deception involving drugs is within the organisation's remit or indeed if it falls within any health regulators' remit. A new concept called ‘Pharmaffiliation' is described and applied to guide the investigation by taking into account the various stakeholders involved in the process of communication.