Swindling the Science: What is Happening to Our Experts?

On Thursday, House Democrats released a report alleging improper collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical manufacturer Biogen Inc. to approve the use of an Alzheimer’s treatment.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration “inappropriately” collaborated with Biogen Inc. before approving its Alzheimer’s treatment Aduhelm in 2021, a new report from House Democrats concluded, as the agency prepares to issue decisions on similar drugs.

Biogen internal documents obtained through a congressional investigation also showed that the company expected pushback from patients and payers but priced its drug at $56,000 to maximize profit, the report says.

A company spokesman said, “Biogen stands by the integrity of the actions we have taken.” Likewise, the FDA asserts that they cooperated with the evaluation and has already initiated the implementation of some of the Committee’s recommendations. An internal review the FDA performed earlier this year referred to this collaboration as “atypical” but not “inappropriate.”

The current director of the FDA, Robert Califf, has an uncomfortably close relationship with pharmaceutical companies. As a consultant, he previously received tens of thousands of dollars as compensation from companies such as Astra Zeneca, Merck, and Eli Lilly. He’s not the first FDA director to boast such connections. Nor would he be the first bureaucrat to head up “regulating” an industry from which he used to benefit.

Consider Gary Gensler, the current chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs; Sonny Perdue, heir to the Perdue fortunate, who served as Secretary of Agriculture from 2017 to 2021; Steve Mnuchin, who served as Secretary of Treasury under Donald Trump, previously worked at Goldman Sachs; and of course, Henry Paulson, who served as the Secretary of Treasury from 2006 to 2009 and oversaw the restructuring of the big banks and redistribution of hundreds of billions of wealth following the 2008 financial crisis (he previously worked at Goldman Sachs).

This is a fraction of a fraction of the current state of cronyism, let alone the history of it, throughout nearly all levels of government and regulatory infrastructure.

Given this level of blatant corruption, is there any reason that trust in American institutions is so low? That our zeitgeist is one of existential nihilism and exorbitant dogmatism?

This was my issue when the discourse around Covid-19 and vaccinations between a slurry of “trust the science” and “don’t microchip me” nonsense. For the record, I’m vaccinated and (mostly) trusted the science. But I also empathized with those that were highly skeptical of the science, or rather, what people were claiming the science to be.

This is not to say I empathize with those that were claiming that essential oils and prayer was all the necessary protection needed from Covid; skepticism of the claims regarding the science does not and should not equate to the all-out incorporation of anti-science into one’s worldview. However, it’s genuinely difficult to trust the regulatory institutions that are intended to protect individuals when those same institutions are stacked with former employees and consultants, many of whom still maintain a vested interested in those companies they are supposed to be regulating.

It should not be shocking that Pfizer and other companies profited billions from the Covid-19 pandemic, as vaccine mandates reigned and booster after booster was announced.

Does this mean that I regret getting the vaccine? No. I had no side effects. I’ve been fine. I’m not worried about it. Does it mean that Pfizer and others may have had a financial incentive to prolong the relevance of vaccines, maximize the profit per vaccine, and withhold millions of doses from other countries that couldn’t pay? Of course. And this incentive gives more ammunition to anti-vaxxers than they would otherwise have, especially when such an incentive materializes with actual evidence of unethical collusion (like that between the FDA and Biogen).

There is a history of oligarchs and billionaires hijacking science for their own benefit. As Paul Lucier explores in his book Scientists and Swindlers: Consulting on Coal and Oil in America, 1820–1890, a complex and scandalous relationship restarted to evolve “…as geologists, chemists, capitalists, and politicians worked to establish scientific research as a legitimate, regularly compensated, and respected enterprise.”

This relationship exists as a way to expand corporate hegemony throughout the world. In some ways, it benefits entire societies. Many private endeavors to improve living conditions started as an idea in the head of a scientist or engineer; some of these ideas were then funded with private and public money. However, this relationship is also available to hijack and abuse. We’ve seen this happen with scientists as they sell their souls to the highest bidder in an effort to reject the claims of climate change via the American Petroleum Institute or the negative health effects of tobacco use via the Tobacco Institute.

So what do we do when it feels like entire agencies and publications are hijacked by anti-science corporatists? As with most things, it helps to follow the money. The scientists and politicians that receive money from these businesses and organizations should generally not be trusted.

Reliable outlets are important to consider, but even they get it wrong; for-profit news is all-too-willing to bury bad news stories when the subject is a sizable advertiser. While this isn’t entirely ignored, many publications refuse to write on it. A significant report detailed in the LA Times can be found in their archives from 1992.

This is why I generally favor non-profit news, such as Pro Publica, and news organizations that are attached to larger professional organizations, journals, and scientific outlets, such as Scientific American or Science. This is not necessarily a call to reject any and all news media that is attached to a legacy media organization, but the effect that larger corporations can have on news outlets can be sizable.

Unfortunately, there is no clean solution or a single call-to-action. Cronyism is a feature of the system, not a bug. Collectively, we can fight to end it over time.

In the meantime, stay informed and reject needless partisanship, as such division often serves the interests of those wishing distract you from the real issues. Perhaps most importantly, don’t let the response grow disproportionate to the problem. Do not embrace an anti-science, anti-intellectual, nihilistic worldview.

Embrace your community and keep motivated to fight the good fight.

-

Header photo courtesy of Vlad Tchompalov.