So Pfizer wants the New England Journal of Medicine to hand over confidential expert reviews of published papers because the science is being used to justify legal action against Pfizer. A great editorial on this subject was recently written by Donald Kennedy, the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine. In case you don’t have full access, I’ve reposted it here.
Kennedy makes great points in his editorial. What gets me is that Pfizer, who presumably bases the efficacy of their drugs on real science, needs critical reviews of data that contradicts theirs from OTHER PEOPLE? What about the “scientists” at Pfizer try reading the papers and coming up with their own informed, critical analyses? When a real scientist comes across published work that contradicts their own, he/she analyzes the data and comes up with reasons as to why the data is contradictory. Not so for Pharma? This is news to me.
I don’t know about you, but I know I would think twice about reviewing new, exciting and controversial scientific data if my anonymity wasn’t preserved. The legal ramifications in a law suit happy world just aren’t worth it.
A Mendelian State of Mind 