ngin - Norfolk Genetic Information Network
Date:  14 November 2000


Why just these two?  See below for multiple examples of science corruption.

*  *  *
From Nature Biotechnology October 2000 - (Vol. 18, No. 10, p. 1024)

A former executive of BioCryst Pharmaceuticals (Birmingham, AL) and his wife have been sentenced to federal prison for their part in a plan to falsify clinical trial data on a psoriasis and skin cancer treatment.

The couple, who falsified data from clinical trials of the enzyme inhibitor BCX-34, were convicted in March of conspiracy, mail fraud and making false statements to the US Food and Drug Administration.  On August 31, a federal court judge in Birmingham sentenced Harry Snyder
and Renee Peugeot, who was a nurse in the trials, to three years and two and a half years in prison, respectively.  Snyder was also ordered to pay $26,000 restitution to the FDA.

BioCryst spokesperson AK Schleusner says Snyder, who was running phase II trials of the drug in 1994 and 1995, was fired in 1995 when false data was discovered; BioCryst subsequently abandoned development of the drug in 1997 after phase III trials were unsuccessful.

The sentencing did not affect the firm's stock price, which was trading at $30 per share in early September.

*  *  *
"All policy makers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."
- THE LANCET, April 2000

* evidence that the withholding of unfavourable research evidence into product performance may have led to thousands of  deaths

* evidence that patents and other financial interests may be influencing researchers' behaviour in ways which could place the public at risk

* evidence of aggressive corporate deception involving government, researchers and the media,2763,156849,00.html

* evidence of widespread industry pressure on scientists to tailor their research findings and advice to suit sponsors

* evidence of the falsification of data to suit commercial objectives,2763,194211,00.html

* evidence that even indirect industry-linked funding can critically distort researchers' findings and published opinions on issues relevant to public safety

* evidence of suppression of unfavourable research evidence into product safety

* evidence of misrepresentation of research to the public and the media to suit commercial objectives

* evidence of government coordination of scientists' contributions to the media to support its pro-biotech line and rebut scientific and political criticism

* evidence of pressure to suppress publication of unfavourable research evidence

* evidence of pressure on journalists to under-report unfavourable research evidence

* evidence of heavy corporate influence over research funding, research agendas, and top-level appointments

* evidence of the use of silencing agreements to gag scientists

* evidence of scientists' self-censorship and of the direct suppression of dissenting scientists

* accumulating evidence of corporate bias in the science base of regulatory bodies charged with protecting the public interest
*  *  *

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <>

ngin bulletin archive