To the Editor: Articles by Olver and Haines1,2 have catalysed robust discussion about the relationship between the pharmaceutical and device industries and the medical profession.3 These authors advocate changes in the direction of clinical cancer research and in health policy.2 In an era in which research into medicines is dominated by industry, they argue for greater scrutiny of data in a resource-constrained environment, and for fundamental changes in the collection, interpretation and ownership of data. We find their arguments sound and equally applicable to other areas of medicines research and health policy.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists (ASCEPT), Adelaide, SA.
- 1. Haines IE, Olver IN. Are self-regulation and declaration of conflict of interest still the benchmark for relationships between physicians and industry? Med J Aust 2008; 189: 263-266. <MJA full text>
- 2. Olver IN, Haines IE. What changes are needed to the current direction and interpretation of clinical cancer research to meet the needs of the 21st century? Med J Aust 2009; 190: 74-77. <MJA full text>
- 3. Van Der Weyden MB. Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry: time for a national policy [editorial]? Med J Aust 2009; 190: 407-408. <MJA full text>
- 4. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Publications. Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) strategy. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/nmp-pdf-natstrateng-cnt.htm (accessed May 2009).
- 5. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [website]. http://www.anzctr.org.au/ (accessed May 2009).