PR View by Peter Pitts

Share this article:
What would happen if you booked a hotel conference room and filled it with senior FDA officials, top academics, threw in a some fashionable healthcare policy experts and spiced it up with a couple of healthcare journalists, pharmaceutical executives and patient advocates? Well, that’s precisely what the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest did in Washington, DC, on Feb. 21.

As the saying goes, “Everything you read in the newspapers is true, except for those things you know about personally.” Nowhere is that statement truer than when it is applied to journalism and healthcare policy. Consider this: Who defines what drug safety means? The FDA? Pharma companies? Congress? Patient advocates? The media? Lately, it seems as though everybody’s an expert. Even Consumer Reports, which now recommends best buys on some medications. Seriously.

What about this statement that we’ve all seen in the newspaper and in the Congressional record? “Politics is trumping science at the FDA.” But isn’t politics trumping science in Congress? What about politics trumping science in our top medical journals? What about rhetoric trumping science in media reporting? What about journalism that demands transparency from pharma, but not from other players?

Rob Pollock of the Wall Street Journal posed the question this way at the conference, “Does media coverage reflect reality and does it matter? I think quite obviously, no, it doesn’t reflect reality; and, yes, it matters a lot.”

And so a question out there for the professional practitioners of healthcare public relations: Are we part of the solution or part of the problem?

Peter J. Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner, is director of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and SVP for Global Health Affairs at Manning Selvage & Lee

Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Next Article in Channel


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Channel

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Monday, September 15

Five things for pharma marketers to know: ...

Pharma has sought 76 meetings with FDA over biosimilars; Gilead licenses Sovaldi to India generic drugmakers; Pfizer and Ranbaxy Lipitor lawsuit dismissed.

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Why Novo Nordisk is choosing not to leverage Victoza's brand equity as it seeks a weight-loss indication for liraglutide.

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, September 12

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, ...

An FDA panel voted in favor of liraglutide for weight loss; Allergan investors backing an attempted takeover of the firm crossed a critical threshold; and 100 million health wearables are ...