RedHelenB Sat 29-Dec-12 07:44:44
Surely they would be liable to major legal action if they had uncovered harmful effects and NOT made it public?
No thats amazingly not the case, and shockingly the way that the legal landscape is shaped, its up to others to prove the case against.
This creates a problem. If they have found evidence to prove there is a problem, they would have two options as they are already potentially liable and already could face huge compensation claims; either admit it and pay up or go down a route where they simply invest in ways to surpress research with suggests problems (eg take legal action against things classed as potentially damaging to company reputations etc).
Given the amounts of money at stake and the profit they are making, versus the funds available to independent researchers who don't have a financial interest in a product, it favours the enormous global corporations. This is more or less why it took so long for the tobacco industry to be successfully challenged.
Ben Goldacre, is one person who has voiced concerns about this problem, but he is by no means the only one.
Its a shocking state of affairs, but in truth, its one of those things where it will require international cooperation to change things. If the UK was to change the law on making it compulsory to release results of studies which showed the negative effects of pharmaceuticals then it could be potentially catastrophic to the UK economy. Its one of our biggest exports and we have the third largest pharmaceutical R&D expenditure in the world.
Money talks.