Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Crisis in Science Prompts Sharing of Data

Posted by Zonk on from the varieties-of-mice-that-nature-forgot-to-make dept.

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "'The crisis in "translational science," or turning basic discoveries into therapies, has been brewing for years, but it hit a depressing nadir in 2005, when just 20 new drugs won approval from the Food and Drug Administration,' Sharon Begley writes in the Wall Street Journal. Concerned researchers and foundations are pushing for more sharing of data between basic scientists and clinical investigators, and Stanford is launching a program to train doctoral students in bench-to-bedside research."

5 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Why would the business people want that? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By restricting the sharing of information and data, the maximum profit potential can be extracted from it.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Why would the business people want that? by recycledpork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I think that pretty much every economic theory would suggest that trading and sharing actually benefits all parties involved. I realize that you are being sarcastic, but maybe if people would actually apply the knowledge humans have acquired instead of just doing business as usual we would all be better off.

      --
      - w00t?
    2. Re:Why would the business people want that? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pharma companies consider failed clinical trials to be trade secrets.

      The FDA is not legally allowed to divulge the results of anythign that's withdrawn from approval.

      Basically, if everyone told everyone else about what didn't work, the only companies that would benefit are those developing similar products. First to market usually has a huuuge advantage, which is why no company wants to help its competitors get ahead.

      This addresses only one aspect of TFA & what you're saying, but that's how it is. Not that it is a good thing, since undisclosed trials/failures usually equates with undisclosed risks.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. When you make science commercial... by analog_line · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Science is run by corporations now. Non-commercial scientific research has been getting the gas pipe for years. Corporate scientists are more than willing to take all the data the silly hippy scientists are willing to give them for free. They're not so willing to share their data in return, because their shareholders will string them up.

    This is what you get with that cushy research job at the biotech company, folks. Now it can start biting you in the ass, just like your greed has bankrupted the rest of us.

  3. Re:FDA regulation by design by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your approach to drug deregulation was tried in the 19th century, and it was an abysmal failure. Most drugs on the market were ineffective, dangerous, or even lethal.

    Today, this unregulated approach continues with the "herbal remedy" market. Once again, most of these products are ineffective or dangerous.

    Where do you get the idea that things would be any different if no approval were needed for real drugs today?