Bias in science and regulation

Any attempt to study industrial and corporate bias in drug testing and regulation raises complex questions about the politics of science. What role have values played in the production of scientific knowledge and regulatory decisions? What is meant by bias, how can it be identified, and whose interests does it serve? Opinions differ and vary according to the institutional context of the scientists in question. Regarding the testing of drugs by industry, representatives of government and industry frequently argue that the effects of any social and political factors in that scientific process are benign, if not beneficial, with respect to patients. Thus, following the thalidomide disaster the British Minister of Health, Enoch Powell, maintained that it was in the commercial interests of any drug company to test its products thoroughly, and thereby to minimize any adverse effects on consumers. ¹ Similarly, representatives of industry acknowledge that they have commercial interests in drug development, but argue that those interests coincide entirely with the best interests of patients. For example, Bruce Peck, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Lilly in 1983, declared:

Lilly does not market a drug nor request government approval for its use until extensive and well-controlled scientific studies prove that its benefits far outweigh the risks. ²