This is brilliant. I’ve seen much evidence of this “academic-industrial” bias in the cardiology fields I am expert in and it leads to deployment of incredibly low value technology. We need a way better measure the conflicts you touch on in this paragraph: “Companies that make devices and scientists who study these devices have dualities of interest. They both benefit if a device works. Companies make profits. Scientists get promoted because “positive” studies get published in higher impact journals. And professional societies also indirectly benefit because they depend on industry funding. “
Maybe diminishing the gains of many in science would change things. Cynicism is not necessary. But things in the world only change when the money changes. In the last 60 yrs science has advanced at a galloping unprecedented pace Yet, the incidence of many cancers are on the rise including brain tumors. What’s the contribution of science. I can tell you for certain: it has not been to prevent and descalaste most health problems. If the whole science enterprise changed to value based and positive outcome Driven we could probably save our money and send 50% of workers on permanent leave.
Thanks Dr. John. I would add to this discussion that sometimes it is not even innovation that is tainted by the KOL / Research / industry interface and lack of intellectual neutrality and duality of interests. Example, the "new" opioids that were brought to market in the mid-1990s. Very little new, just a lot of new thinking about them.
I am an 82 year old retired NICU/NBN R.N. I read Dr. Mandrola's articles because he speaks the truth. This great article is one of the best examples of his abilities to get to the point of the reality of modern day medicine. At my age I have seen it all. Thank. you, John Mandrola, M.D., keep up the great writing. It truly makes one think a little bit harder on where we want the future of medicine to go. Elizabeth M. Mosley, R.N. (Ret.)
Here in Canada, like our neighbour to the south, its difficult to escape the biases that accompany the alliance between industry and medical research, and in particular pharmacology. As a semi-retired professor, I understand research bias, but as a person now dealing with persistent AF, its incredibly discouraging when looking for objective advice. Thanks for the work you do and the questions you raise!
John,
This is brilliant. I’ve seen much evidence of this “academic-industrial” bias in the cardiology fields I am expert in and it leads to deployment of incredibly low value technology. We need a way better measure the conflicts you touch on in this paragraph: “Companies that make devices and scientists who study these devices have dualities of interest. They both benefit if a device works. Companies make profits. Scientists get promoted because “positive” studies get published in higher impact journals. And professional societies also indirectly benefit because they depend on industry funding. “
Anthony Pearson MD FACC
Maybe diminishing the gains of many in science would change things. Cynicism is not necessary. But things in the world only change when the money changes. In the last 60 yrs science has advanced at a galloping unprecedented pace Yet, the incidence of many cancers are on the rise including brain tumors. What’s the contribution of science. I can tell you for certain: it has not been to prevent and descalaste most health problems. If the whole science enterprise changed to value based and positive outcome Driven we could probably save our money and send 50% of workers on permanent leave.
Thanks Dr. John. I would add to this discussion that sometimes it is not even innovation that is tainted by the KOL / Research / industry interface and lack of intellectual neutrality and duality of interests. Example, the "new" opioids that were brought to market in the mid-1990s. Very little new, just a lot of new thinking about them.
I am an 82 year old retired NICU/NBN R.N. I read Dr. Mandrola's articles because he speaks the truth. This great article is one of the best examples of his abilities to get to the point of the reality of modern day medicine. At my age I have seen it all. Thank. you, John Mandrola, M.D., keep up the great writing. It truly makes one think a little bit harder on where we want the future of medicine to go. Elizabeth M. Mosley, R.N. (Ret.)
Insightful as usual Doc. Thank you.
Here in Canada, like our neighbour to the south, its difficult to escape the biases that accompany the alliance between industry and medical research, and in particular pharmacology. As a semi-retired professor, I understand research bias, but as a person now dealing with persistent AF, its incredibly discouraging when looking for objective advice. Thanks for the work you do and the questions you raise!
Thanks for lucid and telling explanation - I have the deepest respect for the work you do – thank you
Thank you John, your thoughts help physicians to look behind..
Excellent! Please keep this type of observation going.