Sex, Drugs, and How to Deal with Criticism: The Case of Flibanserin

Bueter, Anke; Jukola, Saana

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29179-2_20

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A further problematic point is that when patient groups are recruited by commercial agents, it is not always easy to disentangle the interests of patients from those of commercial agents, as there may be an overlap. Finally, the pharmaceutical industry has used patient groups to promote its own interests, for instance, by using them to raise awareness of conditions for which they hold the cure (Bueter and Jukola 2020). While this form of democratizing clinical research draws on established models of participation for reaching a deliberated consensus among stakeholders (see Abels and Bora 2004, 66–68), the idea of participation plays out differently when the use of digital technologies is involved.…”

Section: The Rhetoric Of Participation In the “Democratization Of Hea...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation, Empowerment, and Evidence in the Current Discourse on Personalized Medicine: A Critique of “Democratizing Healthcare”

Roth

Bruni

2021

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Democratization” has recently become a popular trope in Western public discourses on medicine, where it refers to patient participation in the gathering and distribution of health-related data using various digital technologies, in order to improve healthcare technically and socially. We critically analyze the usage of the term from the perspective of the “politics of buzzwords.” Our claim is that the phrase works primarily to publicly justify the dramatic increase in the application of information and data technologies in healthcare and therefore fosters the corresponding industry. As a buzzword, “democratizing healthcare” is characterized by vagueness, which is why it receives meaning only through a word collective—a group of words that provide it with a context and are often used together with it. We examine key terms associated with “democratization” in the healthcare discourse—participation, empowerment, and personalized medicine—and show that the buzzword receives rhetorical power through the ambiguous reference to these concepts (those that are part of the word collective). As a consequence, the idea of “democracy” becomes diluted into meaning merely “access to,” and “healthcare” is reduced to the notion of a preventive, nonacute, monitored form of medical care.

show abstract

Section: The Rhetoric Of Participation In the “Democratization Of Hea...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation, Empowerment, and Evidence in the Current Discourse on Personalized Medicine: A Critique of “Democratizing Healthcare”

Roth

Bruni

2021

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In all cases that I am aware of this general pattern is repeated: specifically, the philosopher begins with a case where industry influence is seen to be problematic and then applies feminist theories of objectivity to assess whether they are adequate to account for the epistemic failing. Other examples of this pattern include: manufacturing uncertainty regarding the safety risks of commercial products (Borgerson, 2011); the failure to develop a HPV vaccine that can be successfully used in developing nations (de Melo-Martin and Intemann, 2011), the distortion of the science on the health effects of second-hand smoke (Fernandez Pinto, 2014), distortion of the reliability of anthropogenic climate change (Fernandez Pinto, 2014;Rolin, 2017); a distortion in the agenda of medical research away from illnesses of the poor (Intemann and de Melo-Martin, 2014); the downplaying of the risks that SSRIs induce suicide (Jukola, 2015a); the manipulation of the FDA in the approval of flibanserin for "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" in women (Holman and Geislar, 2018;Bueter and Jukola, 2020).…”

Section: The Feminist Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

What, Me Worry? Research Policy and the Open Embrace of Industry-Academic Relations

Holman

2021

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of research policy has conducted extensive research on partnerships between industry and academics and concluded that such collaborations are generally beneficial. Such a view stands in stark contrast to the literature in the philosophy of science which almost wholly finds such collaborations corrosive to scientific inquiry. After reviewing the respective literatures, I propose explanations for these polarized views which support the claim that both disciplines have only a partial vantage point on the effects of industry-funded science. In closing, I outline how the research agendas of each discipline might remediate their respective shortcomings.

show abstract

“…Esimerkiksi lääkkeen vaikuttavuuden mittaamiseen tähtäävän tutkimuksen suunnitteluun sisältyy lukuisia vaiheita, joissa tutkijoiden arvolatautuneilla taustaoletuksilla saattaa olla vaikutusta (Louhiala & Hemilä 2005;Stegenga 2015). Esimerkiksi masennuslääkkeiden vaikuttavuuden testaamiseen sisältyy oletuksia siitä, mitä on normaali suru (Stegenga 2015) ja naisten seksuaalisen haluttomuuden hoitoon kehitetyn flibanseriini-lääkeaineen vaikuttavuuden määrittelemiseen liittyi kulttuurisesti värittyneitä oletuksia normaalin seksuaalisen halukkuuden luonteesta (Bueter & Jukola 2020).…”

Section: Näyttöön Perustuvan Toiminnan Kritiikkiunclassified