Follow the Science

Recently it seems that not a week goes by without a major news outlet reporting on a healthcare professional or scientific researcher with a financial tie to industry.  Most often, the articles endorse the sweeping assumption that financial compensation from a corporation should be considered the black mark of bias on scientific research.  The general premise?  Follow the money.

In yesterday's issue of The New York Times, John Tierney addressed the topic head on.  I think he sums it up best when he states, "Conflict-of-interest accusations have become the simplest strategy for avoiding a substantive debate. The growing obsession with following the money too often leads to nothing but cheap ad hominem attacks."  He asks, "Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone's work?"

GSK has taken its fair share of criticism on this topic.  We agree that there is a need to be more transparent.  In fact, in recent years there's been a transformation in how the pharmaceutical industry communicates about its work with healthcare professionals. 

To do our part to be transparent, GSK, like others, is now publishing quarterly reports of our payments to physicians for speaking and advising, as well as the grants we provide to various organizations.  Next year we plan to publish our first report of research payments.

We believe this is one way to improve patients' understanding of how the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare providers work together to improve patient care.   What it comes down to is that sharing this information also is in keeping with GSK's values--to be patient-focused, to work with the highest integrity, to be transparent in our actions, and to treat everyone with respect. 

However, we also can't lose sight of the fact that healthcare professionals bring knowledge and perspective from their experience that they share (with GSK and with other healthcare professionals) to help improve patient care.   Hearing about the research and real life case studies from those on the front  lines, facing complex disease states, is important to advancing healthcare.  The fact is that healthcare professionals often learn best from their peers and colleagues.   Professionals with unique insight and knowledge in their fields who work with industry should be fairly compensated for the services they provide.

That is not to say that there shouldn't be rules governing how this is done.  GSK has guidelines about how we work together to ensure that HCPs are appropriately compensated for work they perform for us to help us improve patient care. 

Clearly explaining who the company is financially compensating--and why--is important, and we will continue doing more of it.   We also need to spend more time explaining why collaboration between GSK and health care experts--healthcare professionals, governments and other experts--is imperative to improving patient care.

And while we're doing that, perhaps it's time that we all agree to follow the science.