George,
Yes, interesting, but potentially a two-edged sword.
From an intellectual or investor standpoint this is more info and more info is always good (assuming you can digest it). In biotech (though as big biotech begins to become medium pharma...) this is pretty much the norm and such a move would basically centralize the info. In pharma, this would be throwing open a big door and not one they necessary want to throw open.
The downside (besides potentially for pharma) is that this could actually reduce research. For example, if a company wants to scope additional indications for a product, this could deter them from looking since they'll have to consider the impact of perceived failure both on off-label sales in those additional indications and counter-detailing by competitors. And failure may not indicate that the product doesn't work; scoping trials may actually be designed to be underpowered, or their purpose may be to examine potential endpoints. All the same, a non-significant result will be viewed by most as a failure of the product.
Ethically then, its not clear which benefits patients and society more: Full access to all information from a more limited amount of research, or imperfect distribution of more research.
BTW, I'm not affiliated w/ any pharmas, and all of my healthcare investments are in companies that love to have any excuse to publish. Just being diabolica advocati.
biowa |
