Have you ever wondered how and why a signficant number
of naive pharmaceutical employees and representatives
speak so highly about the companies they work for? They
almost seem to be under some hypnotic illusion that research
and development is their primary objective. It's more
an internal system of brainwashing within the culture
of Big Pharma. The reality is that the pharmaceutical
industry spends almost twice as much on the marketing
and promotion of drugs than on research and development,
according to a new analysis in this week's PLoS Medicine.
In their analysis of data from two market research companies,
IMS and CAM, Marc-André Gagnon and Joel Lexchin (York
University, Toronto, Canada) found that US drug companies
spent US$57.5 billion on promotional activities in 2004,
the latest year for which figures were available.
In comparison, the National Science Foundation reported
that in 2004 the amount of industrial pharmaceutical research
and development (including public funds for industrial
research and development) was US$31.5 billion in the United
States.
For the last 50 years, say the authors, there has been
an ongoing debate as to which image of the drug industry
is most accurate. The industry promotes a vision of itself,
say the authors, as "research-driven, innovative, and
life-saving," but the industry's critics contend that
the drug industry is based on "market-driven profiteering."
The findings of their study, say Gagnon and Lexchin,
"confirms the public image of a marketing-driven industry
and provides an important argument to petition in favor
of transforming the workings of the industry in the direction
of more research and less promotion."
The types of promotion that were included in the US$57.5
billion figure included free samples, visits from drug
reps ("detailers"), direct to consumer advertising of
drugs, meetings with doctors to promote products, e-mail
promotions, direct mail, and clinical trials designed
to promote the prescription of new drugs rather than to
generate scientific data (these are known as "seeding
trials").
The authors believe that their figure of US$57.5 billion
is likely to be an underestimate. "There are other avenues
for promotion that would not be captured by either IMS
or CAM,” they say. These avenues include the ghostwriting
of articles in medical journals by drug company employees,
or the off-label promotion of drugs.