Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry and Non-Industry-Funded Trials

Recent regulatory reforms have favored expedited drug marketing and increased reliance on Phase IV clinical trials for safety and efficacy assurance. This study, utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov, assesses the characteristics of Phase IV trials, with at least one site in Canada, examing those funded by industry sponsors and those lacking industry funding. Additionally, it compares the publication status of industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials through a manual review of the medical literature. Between 2000 and 2022, 864 Phase IV trials were completed, with 480 (55.6%) receiving industry funding and 384 (44.4%) funded solely by non-industry sources. Industry-funded clinical trials were larger (mean 204 enrollees versus 70), more likely to be international (57.7% versus 9.6%) and reported results more promptly (1.21 years after completion versus 1.85 years), yet both types shared similar design, outcomes, and completion time. Publication rates were 81.8% for industry-funded and 65.8% for non-industry-funded trials. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry displayed 48 inaccuracies in publication associations, raising concerns about its accuracy. Our findings underscore the existing institutional limitations in ensuring comprehensive reporting and publication of Phase IV trial results funded by both industry and non-industry sources.

Actors, Institutions, and Policies

This paper aims to characterize the main actors in the Brazilian pharmaceutical industry - national companies, foreign companies and public laboratories - and analyze how they were affected and how they reacted to changes over the last 30 years in the institutional framework. The results show that national companies have been gaining prominence in the Brazilian pharmaceutical market with their internationalization movement and their strengthening of innovation strategies.

Impact of GAMP 5, data integrity and QbD on quality assurance in the pharmaceutical industry: How obvious is it?

In the pharmaceutical industry, it is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of medicinal products. Therefore a robust quality assurance framework is needed. This manuscript examines the impact of GAMP 5 and data integrity (DI) on quality assurance, while also highlighting the role of quality by design (QbD) principles. GAMP 5 is a widely used framework for validating automated systems that establishes quality assurance practices. DI guarantees the reliability of data collected throughout various stages of drug development. The integration of QbD principles promotes a systematic approach to development that emphasizes a deep understanding of critical quality attributes, risk management, and continuous improvement. With their implementation, organizations are able to meet regulatory requirements and provide safe medications to patients worldwide.

Commercializing Personal Health Information: A Critical Qualitative Content Analysis of Documents Describing Proprietary Primary Care Databases in Canada

BACKGROUND

Commercial data brokers have amassed large collections of primary care patient data in proprietary databases. Our study objective was to critically analyze how entities involved in the collection and use of these records construct the value of these proprietary databases. We also discuss the implications of the collection and use of these databases.

METHODS

We conducted a critical qualitative content analysis using publicly available documents describing the creation and use of proprietary databases containing Canadian primary care patient data. We identified relevant commercial data brokers, as well as entities involved in collecting data or in using data from these databases. We sampled documents associated with these entities that described any aspect of the collection, processing, and use of the proprietary databases. We extracted data from each document using a structured data tool. We conducted an interpretive thematic content analysis by inductively coding documents and the extracted data.

RESULTS

We analyzed 25 documents produced between 2013 and 2021. These documents were largely directed at the pharmaceutical industry, as well as shareholders, academics, and governments. The documents constructed the value of the proprietary databases by describing extensive, intimate, detailed patient-level data holdings. They provided examples of how the databases could be used by pharmaceutical companies for regulatory approval, marketing and understanding physician behaviour. The documents constructed the value of these data more broadly by claiming to improve health for patients, while also addressing risks to privacy. Some documents referred to the trade-offs between patient privacy and data utility, which suggests these considerations may be in tension.

CONCLUSION

Documents in our analysis positioned the proprietary databases as socially legitimate and valuable, particularly to pharmaceutical companies. The databases, however, may pose risks to patient privacy and contribute to problematic drug promotion. Solutions include expanding public data repositories with appropriate governance and external regulatory oversight.

The Mediating Role of Organizational Identification on Sustainable Human Resources Management and Organizational Citizenship Behavior's Relationship

Background

There is a general theme in studying employees in the research and development (R&D) department individual performance studies, where tremendous attention has been paid to innovation performance compared to behavioral and particularly extra-role behavior of employees in this department.

Objectives

This study investigates the relationship between sustainable human resource management (s-HRM) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through the mediating role of organizational identification (OI) in R&D employees.

Methods

A standard questionnaire was used to evaluate s-HRM, OI, and OCB. Five hundred questionnaires were delivered to all employees of the research and development departments of 59 Iranian pharmaceutical companies, and finally, 316 completed questionnaires were collected.

Results

The results of data analysis with WarpPls software revealed a positive and significant relationship between s-HRM and OI, as well as OI and OCB. Investigating the mediating role of OI showed that OI partially mediates the relationship between s-HRM and OCB. The model was checked in terms of its fit indices, which were evaluated as favorable.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that s-HRM improves employees' willingness to go beyond their defined job description to display in OCB. Additionally, they imply that strengthening OI can improve OCB in employees.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

More Pain, More Gain! The Delivery of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in Widening the Access Gap

BACKGROUND

An effective response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic entails a comprehensive strategy that ensures equitable access to all COVID-19-fighting technologies. To achieve this goal, the international community has acknowledged immunization as a public good. However, a trend of grossly unequal dose distribution emerged, owing, among other factors, to pharmaceutical companies' profit-driven actions, jeopardizing the mechanisms built to increase vaccine access. The contradiction between public health interests and corporate discretion in determining vaccine dose distribution poses critical concerns about the health risks associated with lengthening the duration of the pandemic and the eventual liability of companies for violations of human rights.

METHODS

To evaluate the risks posed to the COVID-19 immunization program, data on vaccine allocation and delivery, vaccine dose application, immunized populations, and the volume of Advanced Purchase Agreements (APAs) between countries and pharmaceutical companies were compiled and assessed. A descriptive analysis was then conducted to analyze the role of pharmaceutical companies in providing equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

When the data is broken down by income (as of June 2021), it shows that high-income countries (HICs) have already crossed the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) 20% immunization threshold. However, countries of all other income levels have yet to achieve this mark for fully vaccinated people. Upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) have approximately 3%, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have approximately 2% and low-income countries (LICs) have less than 0.1% of fully vaccinated people per hundred. The supply shortage is expected to last until the second half of 2021.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the COVAX failure, a health gap emerged with countries living in a pre-immunization period for an extended time. The existing conflict between the international response to tackle COVID-19 and corporate profit-driven behavior contributed to prolonging pandemic, especially in Africa. Accordingly, there is a need to approve an international treaty that targets the activities of all actors, including the pharmaceutical companies, in protecting human rights and the right to health realms.

Key Factors to Improve Pharmaceutical Industry's R&D Productivity: A Case Study of Iranian Pharmaceutical Holding

Background: Productivity is one of the most important factors of development in pharmaceutical companies, which is in direct contact with research and development (R&D) employees. The study aimed to identify and prioritize the effective factors for improving the R&D Activities of Iranian pharmaceutical holding. Methods: This case study was performed by a questionnaire designed into two sectors, demographic profile data, and nine attitude factors. The questionnaire was distributed to Iranian pharmaceutical holding. The main sampling targets were managers and employees of the R&D department. Cronbach's alpha considered the reliability of the questionnaire, and the validity of the questionnaire was measured by the content validity method. Descriptive analyses were done using frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and variance. Also, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Pearson correlation coefficient, F test, and Friedman test were used as comparative and inferential analyses. Results: A total of 65 questionnaires were collected (43 are men and 22 are women) from 11 companies of an Iranian pharmaceutical holding. The 5-10 years of work experience with doctorate education levels were common. Based on the ranking done on the data using the Friedman test method, economic factors were recognized as the most important and individual factors as the least important factors. People aged 35-40 years had a higher frequency. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between considered factors and productivity of R&D. Conclusion: All current study's hypotheses show a significant difference in productivity in Iranian pharmaceutical companies.

It's Time to Finally Kill the Zombies Comment on "Universal Pharmacare in Canada"

The movement for a national pharmacare plan in Canada is growing, but at the same time the multinational pharmaceutical companies and their supporters are critical of such a move. The three major arguments that they make are that all that is needed is to "fill in the gaps," ie, cover those who currently are uninsured or underinsured, that private drug plans are superior to public ones because they cover a larger number of drugs and that Canada cannot afford pharmacare. This commentary examines each of these arguments and makes the case that none of them is valid and that it is time to get on with implementing pharmacare.

Data Sharing in Pharmaceutical Supply Chains - Case European Medicines Verification System

We study the perceived value derived from data sharing activities by the representatives of a Nordic pharmaceutical company in the introduction of the European Medicines Verification System (EMVS). The system is an end-to-end verification protocol that would potentially enable the pharmaceutical companies to access the sales-point data from within the system, while maintaining the control of their own data. The benefits of the system are most notably in developing data sharing with the wholesalers and end-customers. Development of data sharing practices might enable more transparent logistics, and more targeted services and products.

Enhancing patient-level clinical data access to promote evidence-based practice and incentivize therapeutic innovation

Clinical trials are crucial to determining the human safety and efficacy of new therapeutic innovations. Extraordinary amounts of human experiential data are generated over the course of any clinical trial, however, much of these data is never made publicly accessible. Improved, reliable data sharing is essential to inform clinical decisions and incentivize further therapeutic improvements; this need, and the call and concept to enhance patient-level clinical trial data accessibility is not new. Several recent public and private shifts in clinical data sharing policies and procedures promise to improve access and data utility to reduce waste in research and increase efficiency of evidence synthesis. Nonetheless, pharmaceutical industry remain reluctant to share full clinical data sets at some level to protect their commercial interests and avoid misuse of their data. Here, we review the landscape of emerging regulations related to the sharing of patient level data and current clinical data access models of major pharmaceutical companies. We also summarize the different measures that could satisfy both clinical data producers and users in achieving the benefits of accessing patient-level data while mitigating any associated risks.

Sunshine Policies and Murky Shadows in Europe: Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Health Professionals in Nine European Countries

Relationships between health professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers can unduly influence clinical practice. These relationships are the focus of global transparency efforts, including in Europe. We conducted a descriptive content analysis of the transparency provisions implemented by February 2017 in nine European Union (EU) countries concerning payments to health professionals, with duplicate independent coding of all data. Using an author-generated, semi-structured questionnaire, we collected information from each disclosure policy/code on: target industries, categories of healthcare professionals covered, scope of payments included, location and searchability of the disclosed data. Our analysis shows that although important improvements have been put in place in the past few years, significant gaps remain in disclosure requirements and their implementation. The situation differs substantially from country to country and the most striking differences are between governmental and self-regulatory approaches, especially with regard to the comprehensiveness of the disclosed data. In many cases, individuals can still opt out and reporting is incomplete, with common influential gifts such as food and drink excluded. Finally, in several countries data are only available as separate PDFs from companies, thus making the payment reports difficult to access and analyse. In order to overcome these gaps, minimum standards for disclosures should be implemented across Europe. All payments to healthcare professionals and organizations should be included, all health-related industries should be required to submit reports, and usability of disclosed data should be guaranteed.

Biopharmaceutical Innovation System in China: System Evolution and Policy Transitions (Pre-1990s-2010s)

BACKGROUND

This article sets up the initial discussion of the evolution of biopharmaceutical innovation in China through the perspective of sectoral innovation system (SIS).

METHODS

Two data sources including archival documentary data and field interviews were used in this study. Archival documentary data was collected from China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). In addition, industrial practitioners and leading researchers in academia were interviewed.

RESULTS

Biopharmaceutical in China was established through international knowledge transfer. The firms played more active role in commercializing biopharmaceutical in China though universities and research institutes were starting to interact with local firms and make contribution to biopharmaceutical industrialization. The transition of the Chinese government's policies continuously shapes the evolution of biopharmaceutical sector. Policies have been dramatic changes before and after 1980s to encourage developing biopharmaceutical as a competitive industry for China.

CONCLUSION

A SIS for biopharmaceutical has been shaped in China. However, currently biopharmaceutical is still a small sector in China, and for the further growth of the industry more synthetic policies should be implemented. Not only the policy supports towards the research and innovation of biopharmaceuticals in the early stage of development should be attended, but also commercialization of biopharmaceutical products in the later stage of sales.

Market Size and Innovation: Effects of Medicare Part D on Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Recent evidence suggests that Medicare Part D increased prescription drug use among seniors, and increased pharmaceutical firms' revenues from sales. Previous studies also indicate that increases in market size induce pharmaceutical innovation. This paper assesses the impact of the Medicare Part D legislation on pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), using time-series data on the number of drugs entering preclinical and clinical development by therapeutic class and phase. We find that the passage and implementation of Medicare Part D is associated with significant increases in pharmaceutical R&D for therapeutic classes with higher Medicare market share.

Guidelines, editors, pharma and the biological paradigm shift

Private investment in biomedical research has increased over the last few decades. At most places it has been welcomed as the next best thing to technology itself. Much of the intellectual talent from academic institutions is getting absorbed in lucrative positions in industry. Applied research finds willing collaborators in venture capital funded industry, so a symbiotic growth is ensured for both.

There are significant costs involved too. As academia interacts with industry, major areas of conflict of interest especially applicable to biomedical research have arisen. They are related to disputes over patents and royalty, hostile encounters between academia and industry, as also between public and private enterprise, legal tangles, research misconduct of various types, antagonistic press and patient-advocate lobbies and a general atmosphere in which commercial interest get precedence over patient welfare.

Pharma image stinks because of a number of errors of omission and commission. A recent example is suppression of negative findings about Bayer's Trasylol (Aprotinin) and the marketing maneuvers of Eli Lilly's Xigris (rhAPC). Whenever there is a conflict between patient vulnerability and profit motives, pharma often tends to tilt towards the latter. Moreover there are documents that bring to light how companies frequently cross the line between patient welfare and profit seeking behaviour.

A voluntary moratorium over pharma spending to pamper drug prescribers is necessary. A code of conduct adopted recently by OPPI in India to limit pharma company expenses over junkets and trinkets is a welcome step.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are considered important as they guide the diagnostic/therapeutic regimen of a large number of medical professionals and hospitals and provide recommendations on drugs, their dosages and criteria for selection. Along with clinical trials, they are another area of growing influence by the pharmaceutical industry. For example, in a relatively recent survey of 2002, it was found that about 60% of 192 authors of clinical practice guidelines reported they had financial connections with the companies whose drugs were under consideration. There is a strong case for making CPGs based not just on effectivity but cost effectivity. The various ramifications of this need to be spelt out. Work of bodies like the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Collaboration and Guidelines Advisory Committee (GAC) are also worth a close look.

Even the actions of Foundations that work for disease amelioration have come under scrutiny. The process of setting up ‘Best Practices’ Guidelines for interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and clinicians has already begun and can have important consequences for patient care. Similarly, Good Publication Practice (GPP) for pharmaceutical companies have also been set up aimed at improving the behaviour of drug companies while reporting drug trials

The rapidly increasing trend toward influence and control by industry has become a concern for many. It is of such importance that the Association of American Medical Colleges has issued two relatively new documents - one, in 2001, on how to deal with individual conflicts of interest; and the other, in 2002, on how to deal with institutional conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical research. Academic Medical Centers (AMCs), as also medical education and research institutions at other places, have to adopt means that minimize their conflicts of interest.

Both medical associations and research journal editors are getting concerned with individual and institutional conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical research and documents are now available which address these issues. The 2001 ICMJE revision calls for full disclosure of the sponsor's role in research, as well as assurance that the investigators are independent of the sponsor, are fully accountable for the design and conduct of the trial, have independent access to all trial data and control all editorial and publication decisions. However the findings of a 2002 study suggest that academic institutions routinely participate in clinical research that does not adhere to ICMJE standards of accountability, access to data and control of publication.

There is an inevitable slant to produce not necessarily useful but marketable products which ensure the profitability of industry and research grants outflow to academia. Industry supports new, not traditional, therapies, irrespective of what is effective. Whatever traditional therapy is supported is most probably because the company concerned has a product with a big stake there, which has remained a ‘gold standard’ or which that player thinks has still some ‘juice’ left.

Industry sponsorship is mainly for potential medications, not for trying to determine whether there may be non-pharmacological interventions that may be equally good, if not better. In the paradigm shift towards biological psychiatry, the role of industry sponsorship is not overt but probably more pervasive than many have realised, or the right thinking may consider good, for the health of the branch in the long run.

An issue of major concern is protection of the interests of research subjects. Patients agree to become research subjects not only for personal medical benefit but, as an extension, to benefit the rest of the patient population and also advance medical research.

We all accept that industry profits have to be made, and investment in research and development by the pharma industry is massive. However, we must also accept there is a fundamental difference between marketing strategies for other entities and those for drugs.

The ultimate barometer is patient welfare and no drug that compromises it can stand the test of time. So, how does it make even commercial sense in the long term to market substandard products? The greatest mistake long-term players in industry may make is try to adopt the shady techniques of the upstart new entrant. Secrecy of marketing/sales tactics, of the process of manufacture, of other strategies and plans of business expansion, of strategies to tackle competition are fine business tactics. But it is critical that secrecy as a tactic not extend to reporting of research findings, especially those contrary to one's product.

Pharma has no option but to make a quality product, do comprehensive adverse reaction profiles, and market it only if it passes both tests.

Why does pharma adopt questionable tactics? The reasons are essentially two:

What with all the constraints, a drug comes to the pharmacy after huge investments. There are crippling overheads and infrastructure costs to be recovered. And there are massive profit margins to be maintained. If these were to be dependent only on genuine drug discoveries, that would be taking too great a risk.

Industry players have to strike the right balance between profit making and credibility. In profit making, the marketing champions play their role. In credibility ratings, researchers and paid spokes-persons play their role. All is hunky dory till marketing is based on credibility. When there is nothing available to make for credibility, something is projected as one and marketing carried out, in the calculated hope that profits can accrue, since profit making must continue endlessly. That is what makes pharma adopt even questionable means to make profits.

Essentially, there are four types of drugs. First, drugs that work and have minimal side-effects; second, drugs which work but have serious side-effects; third, drugs that do not work and have minimal side-effects; and fourth, drugs which work minimally but have serious side-effects. It is the second and fourth types that create major hassles for industry. Often, industry may try to project the fourth type as the second to escape censure.

The major cat and mouse game being played by conscientious researchers is in exposing the third and fourth for what they are and not allowing industry to palm them off as the first and second type respectively. The other major game is in preventing the second type from being projected as the first. The third type are essentially harmless, so they attract censure all right and some merriment at the antics to market them. But they escape anything more than a light rap on the knuckles, except when they are projected as the first type.

What is necessary for industry captains and long-term players is to realise:

Their major propelling force can only be producing the first type. 2. They accept the second type only till they can lay their hands on the first. 3. The third type can be occasionally played around with to shore up profits, but never by projecting them as the first type. 4. The fourth type are the laggards, real threat to credibility and therefore do not deserve any market hype or promotion.

In finding out why most pharma indulges in questionable tactics, we are lead to some interesting solutions to prevent such tactics with the least amount of hassles for all concerned, even as both profits and credibility are kept intact.

Of sophists and spin-doctors: industry-sponsored ghostwriting and the crisis of academic medicine

Ghostwriting for medical journals has become a major, but largely invisible, factor contributing to the problem of credibility in academic medicine. In this paper I argue that the pharmaceutical marketing objectives and use of medical communication firms in the production of ghostwritten articles constitute a new form of sophistry. After identifying three distinct types of medical ghostwriting, I survey the known cases of ghostwriting in the literature and explain the harm done to academic medicine and to patients. Finally, I outline steps to address the problem and restore the integrity of the medical literature.

Veterinary medicines in Britain: output and industry organisation since 1900

The historical development and economic impact of pharmaceuticals in the UK are nowadays reasonably well documented. That industry has become the most profitable and fast growing of the country's high-tech industries. Its member firms undertake more than one-fifth of the national research and development (R&D) activities, one half being carried out in Britain, and currently achieve a £2.4 billion favourable trade balance with the rest of the world.

The connection between academia and industry

The growing commercialization of research with its effect on the ethical conduct of researchers, and the advancement of scientific knowledge with its effect on the welfare or otherwise of patients, are areas of pressing concern today and need a serious, thorough study. Biomedical research, and its forward march, is becoming increasingly dependent on industry-academia proximity, both commercial and geographic. A realization of the commercial value of academic biomedical research coupled with its rapid and efficient utilization by industry is the major propelling force here. A number of well-intentioned writers in the field look to the whole development with optimism. But this partnership is a double-edged sword, for it carries with it the potential of an exciting future as much as the prospect of misappropriation and malevolence. Moreover, such partnerships have sometimes eroded public trust in the research enterprise itself.Connected to the growing clout of industry in institutions is concern about thecommercialization of research and resolving the 'patient or product' loyalty.There is ambivalence about industry funding and influence in academia, and a consequent 'approach-avoidance' conflict. If academia has to provide the patients and research talent, industry necessarily has to provide the finances and other facilities based on it. This is an invariable and essential agreement between the two parties that they can walk out of only at their own peril. The profound ethical concerns that industry funded research has brought center-stage need a close look, especially as they impact patients, research subjects, public trust, marketability of products, and research and professional credibility.How can the intermediate goal of industry (patient welfare) serve the purpose of the final goal of academia is the basic struggle for conscientious research institutions /associations. And how best the goal of maximizing profits can be best served, albeit suitably camouflaged as patient welfare throughout, is the concern of the pharmaceutical industry.A very great potential conflict of interest lies in the fact that academia needs the sophisticated instruments that only big funding can provide, while at the same time resists the attempts of the fund provider to set the agenda of research, protocol, design, publication, the works. Conflicts arise at many steps and levels of functioning, and are related to the expectations, competing interests, and conflicting priorities of the different entities involved, whether they are the academic medical centers, the funding agencies, the patients and their families, or the investors and venture capitalists.The public expects access to new treatments. Its appetite for innovation has been bolstered by the constant attention given by the press to new treatments and by the implicit promise from researchers of continuing advances. Similarly, patients demand privacy and control over information about themselves.It makes greater sense for genuine researchers to associate with large long-term industry players who have a track record of genuine hard-core discoveries, even if the process is slow (maybe), and the funding less (may not be).The element of control venture capitalists exert over the pharmaceutical industry is an under researched area for obvious reasons. But it needs further probing, for that will lay bare the pulls and pressures under which industry works.It makes sense for ethically minded researchers and institutions not to fall in the trap of stocks and equity investments in industry, howsoever attractive they appear, and get rid of them as soon as possible if they have them. If at all they want, it makes more sense to own stocks of larger well established concerns, for the stock upheavals being less, the pressure of the market-place, and of venture sharks, is likely to be lower too.While active participation by the researcher in the commercialization process may be greatly desired by industry, ostensibly in the name of creating value, academia must realize it is a bait it might find hard to swallow in the long run. It makes more sense for the researcher and institution to forego such temptations and/or walk out of such investments as soon as possible.While mainstream medicine and research are booming, as is connected industry, concerns about professional commitment to patient welfare are growing too. Increasing corporate influence is challenging certain long held and fundamental values of patient care, which will have far reaching implications for biomedical care and the future progress of mainstream medicine.

What shall we do about our concern with the most recent in psychiatric research?

Most clinicians and researchers are concerned with recent advances in psychiatry. This involves the danger whether something time-tested may get sidelined for extra-scientific reasons. That the pharmaceutical industry and superspecialist researcher may keep churning out new findings to impress audiences is only a partial truth. Research progresses by refutation and self-correction. Acceptance in science is always provisional; changing paradigms, frameworks of enquiry and raising new questions is integral to break through in scientific knowledge. Hence, there is in science a constant concern with the new. Moreover, the number of treatment non- responders to the time-tested swells with time, and researchers feel challenged to find ways and means of resolving their difficulties. Newer challenges need newer strategies. Obsession with the most recent can lead us astray, but a healthy evidence-based acceptance of the new is essential for advancement in psychiatric research. As indeed of research in all fields of medicine. And of science in general. The role of lithium and newer mood stabilizers in bipolar disorders are taken as examples to highlight this point.