The downsides of industry-funded development of new therapeutics

Abstract

Clinical trials are a series of studies that help evaluate the safety and efficacy of a newly discovered drug. Although government funds around 80% of basic research to discover new drugs, it does not sponsor clinical trials at a competent level. Most of the trials are financially supported by pharmaceutical companies which arecertainly a worthwhile contribution to drug discovery, but it also influences the outcome of a clinical trial by ensuring acceptable government policies. Studies revealed that industries often practice selective reporting where unfavorable results are concealed, and positive outcomes are over-published, thereby misleading policies and future research. These downsides can be countered by utilizing funds that are totally devoid of industrial interference. It was reported that medical practitioners widely accept results from government-funded research studies and degrade the integrity of industry-funded clinical trials. Government-funded clinical trials virtually result in flawless conclusions which are extensively accepted and employed in conducting future research. Unlike industry-funded research work, government-funded trials emphasize on the need of the hour and deliver a quality result which is witnessed by the emergence of 93 Nobel Prize winners through the National Institutes of Health funded research work. A survey study revealed that 68% of respondents endorsed for doubling government funds for drug development. Utilizing standard methodologies from health economics such as cost-effective analysis and health technology assessment and public–private collaborations can be a solution for several developing and underdeveloped countries which cannot afford to sponsor drug research on its own.