not surprising: drug approval process/studies biased

the FDA is biased, according to several new reports. the british medical journal, for one, notes that data presented to them obscured the suicide risk of SSRI antidepressants. john grohol writes an excellent review of the article.

grohol also notes a USA today article stating that studies by big pharma tend to fare more favorably, which should not come as a surprise. whoever funds a study will undoubtedly influence the results, possibly unintentionally - it is easy to do. simply the kind and phrasing of questions can bias research.

what surprises me is that either of these reports surprises anyone. it is not fair to expect unbiased science. scientific studies are not the word of God (or "nature") but rather acts of humans, humans with motives and biases. i just don't understand how we could forget that. we must take all studies in that light, although we can’t say it every time because, well, we are lazy and it is a pain to repeat oneself. a healthy skepticism about all things trying to exert power over us, whether by scientific authority or by political power, is necessary - and only partially because they may be wrong.

Labels: drugs