MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W332675599

Ethical Transparency and Government Regulation of Canada's Medical Research Industry

2008· article· en· W332675599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey Poitras, Lindsay Meredith

Bibliographic record

VenueForum on public policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicalizationGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPharmaceutical industryTransparency (behavior)BioethicsPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessPublic administrationLawMedicinePsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. The Medicalization of Society Medicalization is a social process where the medical profession extends its authority over matters not directly concerned with the analysis and treatment of biophysical disorders. In this definition, the medical profession includes not only practising doctors and associations of doctors but also: the pharmaceutical industry, providing the drugs that are an essential component of modern medicine; the academic institutions and journals involved in training doctors and sponsoring essential research activities; and, the government granting agencies and other sponsors that supply essential funding to the research conducted by the medical profession. (4) Significantly, because the source of capital for the pharmaceutical industry is the global financial markets, the primary motivations of this important player in the medical profession differ from those of the other players. The implications of this difference are the substance for a legion of studies on the marketing networks of the pharmaceutical companies and the sophisticated efforts involved in selling products. The differing motivations within the medical profession create an ethical dilemma for government regulators: how to balance public health concerns with the need to restrict the economic footprint of the regulatory framework on an industry that produces and distributes some of the most important products of modern science? The concept of medicalization has a history going back, at least, to the 1950's when Thomas Szasz, Barbara Wootton and others attacked the advance of psychiatry beyond the treatment of well defined mental disorders into areas of dysfunctional behaviour related to crime and delinquency. (5) For Szasz and Wootton, 'science' was replacing traditional areas of social morality as the means distinguishing between the undeniably mad from those who are simply unable to manage their lives. The distinction between 'mentally incompetent' and 'sinful' needs to be determined by social values. Allowing 'medical science' to encroach on this decision focuses attention on the individual instead of the environment as the source of the problem. As Wootton observes: Always it is easier to put up a clinic than to pull down a slum. While insightful, the early contributions by Szasz and Wootton only examined the narrow confines of psychiatry where the social implications of medicalization are readily discernible. During the 1970's, the extension of these initial notions to a wider field of applications was initiated by Eliot Freidson and Irving Zola where the connection between medicalization and social control was established. (6) See Table 1: Top 20 Pharma Products in Advertising (2005) The identification of medicine as an institution of social control can be traced to Talcott Parsons. (7) As such, development of the connection between social control and medicalization was consistent with traditional sociology where social control is a central concept. The observation that medicine had nudged aside or replaced religion as the dominant moral force in the social control of modern societies was a central theme in medicalization research surveyed in the influential 1992 review by Peter Conrad (Medicalization and Social Control). The lack of cohesion in this research is reflected in the considerable effort Conrad dedicates to the search for a precise definition of 'medicalization'. (8) Driven by the remarkable evolution of the medical profession in the last two decades, it is becoming gradually apparent that the medicalization concept is too diverse to be analysed with a unifying methodology. (9) In particular, analytical advantage is gained if medicalization is dichotomized into two categories: social medicalization, dealing with the type of social control issues that originate with Szasz and Wootton; and, economic medicalization, dealing with the creation of markets for medical technology and professional services. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0280.038
Scholarly communication0.0270.006
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0320.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.508
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.064 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForum on public policySame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207