Abstract

A much‐debated series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2015 labeled the pharmaceutical industry's critics “pharmascolds.” Having followed the debate for two decades, I count myself among the scolds. The weight of the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that pharmaceutical policy no longer serves the public interest; the central questions now are how this happened and what to do about it. I approached three of the most recent books on the industry with these questions in mind. Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime (CRC Press, 2013), by Peter Gøtzsche, Bad Pharma (Faber & Faber, 2013), by Ben Goldacre, and Good Pharma (Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), by Donald Light and Antonio Maturo, all situate their critical assessments in high‐income countries globally, depicting the problem of pharmaceuticals as too many drugs approved with too little evidence, causing too many needless deaths, and prices spiraling to heights unimaginable just a decade ago. Light and Maturo, while no less critical of the status quo than Gøtzsche and Goldacre, take a different tack: they detail the success of an alternative model for pharmaceutical research, the Mario Negri Institute in Italy, citing it as proof positive that we can indeed defy capitalism's profit imperative.