In favour of a Millian proposal to reform biomedical research

Abstract

One way to make philosophy of science more socially relevant is to attend to specific scientific practises that affect society to a great extent. One such practise is biomedical research. This paper looks at contemporary U.S. biomedical research in particular and argues that it suffers from important epistemic, moral and socioeconomic failings. It then discusses and criticises existing approaches to improve on the status quo, most prominently by Thomas Pogge (a political philosopher), Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel-prize winning economist) and James Robert Brown (a philosopher of science). Finally, it sketches an alternative proposal and argues for its superiority. The proposal has four components: changing the intellectual property regime; instituting independent clinical research; aligning innovators' and patients' interests; and enacting additional regulation.

The Limited Effectiveness of Prestige as an Intervention on the Health of Medical Journal Publications

“…Federal protections are also needed for medical journals and editors who publish unfavorable trial results (protections are also needed for reviewers who recommend their publication). We may even need to uproot the financial pull of industry more directly by getting rid of medical patents (Brown 2004, 2008; Reiss and Kitcher 2009; Reiss 2010) and providing full public funding for medical research (Brown 2004, 2008). To combat publication bias in medicine, we must go well beyond the prestige of its gate-keepers, the content of its evaluative standards, and the expertise of its members by appealing to increased federal legislation, enforcement, and funding 18…”

Responsabilidad ética de la industria farmacéutica sobre la inversión en investigación de las enfermedades olvidadas. Propuesta de mejora.

“…La relación de la industria farmacéutica con los países en vías de desarrollo y, especialmente, con la investigación biomédica (BMR), es motivo de múltiples publicaciones que la califican como deficiente a nivel epistemológico, moral, y socio-económico (Reiss, 2010). Es evidente que el gran negocio de la industria farmacéutica se localiza en los países occidentales y se orienta a «enfermedades occidentales», por ejemplo el cáncer, enfermedades cardiovasculares, degenerativas etc.…”

“…Además, y como ya hemos visto, las empresas farmacéuticas reciben importantes cantidades de fondos públicos destinadas a I+D con la finalidad de mejorar la salud de los ciudadanos. Pero el hecho es que la mayor parte de estos fondos se destinan a desarrollar productos que no son necesarios o que aportan solamente ligeras variaciones a productos ya existentes en el mercado (Reiss, 2010). Si, tal y como se ha demostrado, existe una falta real de investigación en ciertas enfermedades (por ejemplo, las EO), podría plantearse el hecho de invertir estos fondos públicos, al menos una parte de ellos, en la investigación de aquellas enfermedades que realmente lo necesitan.…”

From Tapestry to Loom: Broadening the Perspective on Values in Science

“…However, it might be that we need to think bigger. The existence of patents in biomedical research has come under searing criticism (Brown 2009;Reiss 2010). We might well wonder whether patents are defensible entities at all in today's corporate landscape.…”