It's hard to read the longreads from the previous two days and not have an intense skepticism about pharmaceutical companies and their research. But is it possible for that skepticism to go too far?
Today's longread looks at a recent study that found that doctors, who used to have a cozy relationship with Big Pharma, are now often overly-dismissive of the results of industry-funded studies. Even though the studies had meticulous methodological practices, the doctors still were more likely to be wary of their results.
My reaction to this finding is twofold. First, I think it's important to keep in mind that most of the doctors were still able to identify the difference between the studies that were well-designed and poorly-designed regardless of their funding source. So while there may be some instances where doctors are overly skeptical, by and large they are doing a good job of being guided by the details and not by single factors like the study's sponsor. Second, I disagree with the quote concluding the article that "excessive skepticism is as much a bad thing as naïveté." Except in the most dire situation, I'd much rather have a doctor follow something akin to the precautionary principle to protect me against unintended side effects. And in general, skepticism is what drives science. I'd almost always put more trust in someone who asks too many questions as opposed to someone who asks too few.
"Are Doctors Too Wary of Drug Companies?" by Dr. Pauline Chen
Published on the New York Times Well Blog, October 18, 2012
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/are-doctors-too-wary-of-drug-companies/
Eric
No comments:
Post a Comment