miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015
Astra Zeneca "se receta" una dosis de escepticismo...
"Nos diferenciamos unos de otros
por dos razones:
por nuestras experiencias individuales
y deseos que dan forma a nuestro sistema nervioso,
y porque diferencias genéticas sutiles innatas
nos distinguen unos de otros"
In an unusual twist, AstraZeneca has nominated a renowned scientist – and pharmaceutical industry skeptic – to its board.
Cori Bargmann, who works at Rockefeller University in New York, was chosen yesterday by the big drug maker to stand for election in April and take a seat on its science committee. Apart from her science creds – she has been a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator for the past 20 years – she has also Tweeted a few skeptical remarks about drug makers over the past few years.
For instance, after GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion to settle U.S. civil and criminal charges of off-label marketing and concealing trial data, Bargmann Tweeted “GSK illegally markets drugs for recreational purposes. In other segments of the economy, that leads to prison.” Then there was this: “Remarkable story in the Washington Post about Glaxo obfuscation of Avandia risks. No wonder they paid $3B fine.”
She also Tweeted her concerns after reading about quality-control foibles at Ranbaxy Laboratories, the generic drug maker that two years ago paid a $500 million fine to U.S. authorities as part of a settlement that included pleading guilty to two charges of violating drug safety laws. “Appalling generic drug manufacturer Ranbaxy,” reads the Tweet. “Can we have regulatory oversight for essential medication? Please?”
Of course, these remarks were Tweeted some time ago. What does Bargmann think today?
“Along with an increasing number of people with both liberal and conservative convictions, I think that the U.S. imprisons far too many people as part of the ‘war on drugs.’ The Tweet was a joke about double standards, not a call to arms,” she tells The Financial Times, which first reported her Tweets, about her comments regarding Glaxo. “I do think we should all do our best to behave ethically,” she continued. “I would bring that perspective to [AstraZeneca], if elected, or anywhere else.”
But in response to an e-mail that we sent her, Bargmann does not consider herself a pharma critic, which is how she was described in the story. “I expect to learn much more about the pharmaceutical industry if AstraZeneca elects me,” she wrote us. But “no, I don’t consider myself a pharma critic – just inexperienced.”
Was AstraZeneca aware of her Tweets prior to her nomination? We asked the drug maker about this possibility, but a spokeswoman declined to answer the question. (Más)