Recent arguments over whether certain public health interventions should be mandatory raise questions about what counts as a "mandate." A mandate is not the same as a mere recommendation or the standard of practice. At minimum, a mandate should require an active opt-out and there should be some penalty for refusing to abide by it. Over-loose use of the term "mandate" and the easing of opt-out provisions could eventually pose a risk to the gains that truly mandatory public health interventions, (...) such as childhood vaccines, have provided over the last 50 years. Already, confusion about what counts as a mandate, and about what criteria should be used to determine when a public health intervention should be implemented as a mandate, has led to some inappropriate public policy decisions. For instance, by any reasonable criteria, the yearly influenza vaccine should be mandatory for health care workers. To enforce this mandate, those who refuse vaccination should be required to sign a waiver, and patients - especially those at high risk from flu - should be informed when they receive care from unvaccinated practitioners. (shrink)

Regulating clinical trials for testing new drugs is fraught with risk. Misregulation can slow development of innovative and useful new drugs, but in other ways misregulation can foster trials that are inefficient and unethical, driven by commercial rather than scientific ends, and that can harm patients. In this paper, we argue not for more but for better regulation, based on the goal of rapidly producing innovative and safe products that represent significant advances in medical care. Data on industry-funded, late-stage clinical (...) trials demonstrate an urgent need for dramatic changes in how these trials are designed, conducted, and analyzed. On the one hand, current patent rules can dissuade development of innovative new products with smaller markets and press trial designers to create positive results too rapidly. But at the same time, numerous studies show that when the pharmaceutical industry sponsors clinical trials, the results are systematically biased in favor of the sponsor's product, often to the detriment of patients and the public. The reasons for this bias are both complex and unavoidable, and the ways in which clinical trial design, conduct, and reporting can be inappropriately influenced are so varied and nuanced, that efforts to manage this conflict of interest and prevent harms are inevitably unsuccessful. Instead, we conclude such conflict should be avoided and a strong firewall should exist between drug developers and the final stages of clinical testing in humans. All financial support for phase III clinical trials should pass through a public-private partnership organization — perhaps tied to a broader clinical effectiveness research enterprise — which would be charged with designing, funding, and monitoring late-stage human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products. (shrink)

There is an old saw in health policy that everyone wants health care that is good, fast, and cheap — but it’s impossible to have more than two of these at one time.A similar bit of folk wisdom seems intuitively true for the development and testing of new pharmaceutical products. The public is in a bind. We want breakthrough drugs, and fast. But we also want these drugs to be affordable, thoroughly tested, safe, and effective. It seems we can’t have (...) it all.In this paper, we will not claim that one can have it all — but that we can do far better than we are at present. First, we review extensive data on contemporary problems in the design, conduct, and analysis of industry-sponsored clinical trials. Finding major issues that have been solidly documented over more than a decade, we provide many examples of the multifarious ways in which industry-funded trials have been manipulated to raise the likelihood of producing industry-friendly results. (shrink)

Lack of vaccine confidence can contribute to drops in vaccination coverage and subsequent outbreaks of diseases like measles and polio. Low trust in vaccines is attributed to a combination of factors, including lack of understanding, vaccine scares, flawed policies, social media and mistrust of vaccine manufacturers, scientists and decision-makers. The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare societies’ vulnerability to new pathogens and the critical role of vaccines in containing this and future pandemics. It has also put science at the forefront of (...) the response, with several governments relying on academics to help shape policy and communicate with the public. Against this backdrop, protecting public trust in scientists and scientific output is arguably more important than ever. Yet, conflicts of interest in biomedical research remain ubiquitous and harmful, and measures to curb them have had limited success. There is also evidence of bias in industry-sponsored vaccine studies and academics are voicing concerns about the risks of working in a CoI prevalent research area. Here, we set out to challenge established thinking with regard to vaccine confidence, by shifting the gaze from a deficit in public understanding towards probity in research relationships and suggesting an alternative and perhaps complementary strategy for addressing vaccine mistrust. We argue that a concerted effort needs to be made to revisit the norms that undergird contemporary vaccine research, coupled with a willingness of all stakeholders to reimagine those relationships with an emphasis on demonstrating trustworthiness and probity. (shrink)