The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) announced its estimate of drug development costs of $2.87 billion dollars in a recent paper by DiMasi et al.
However, last year, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, Andrew Witty, called the pharmaceutical industry's previous common estimate of a $1 billion cost to develop a drug a "myth," adding: "this is used by the industry to justify exorbitant prices." Tufts’ report enhances this myth almost threefold.
The study assumes zero funding from public agencies yet a 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that public funds contributed to the discovery of up to 21.2% of all drugs involved in new-drug applications approved from 1990 through 2007.
The medical charity claims that new drugs can be developed for as little as $50m, or up to $186m if the cost of failed programs is also taken into account, citing figures from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi).
The Tufts affair highlights serious and growing evidence of conflict between academic integrity and financial interests in North America universities. Pharmaceutical funding was responsible for the creation of the Tufts CSDD, and Peter Dolan (the former CEO of Bristol Myers-Squibb) is on the CSDD’s Board of Trustees.
Already the unsupported claims by the Tufts CSDD has provided pretext for pharmaceutical companies to defend high monopoly drug prices. In response to a New York Times Op Ed on high medicine prices (Jan. 15, 2015), John J. Castellani, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), used the report to defend cancer drug prices, which climb well over $100,000 per patient, per year.
Our Demands
We demand the immediate termination of Joe DiMasi from Tufts and the creation of an independent monitoring board to examine the mission and findings of the Tufts Center for Drug Discovery.
Furthermore, the Tufts CSDD should review and publish its conflict of interest policies in regards to acceptance of pharmaceutical funding for studies conducted by the center, and the role of former pharmaceutical executives on its Board of Trustees.
References - Shortened version
-
DNDi. Research & Development for Diseases of the Poor: A 10-Year Analysis of Impact of the DNDi Model (5 December 2013), https://www.dndi.org/2013/media-centre/press-releases/dndi-rd-model/
-
Hirschler B. GlaxoSmithKline boss says new drugs can be cheaper. (14 March 2013), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glaxosmithkline-prices/glaxosmithkline-boss-says-new-drugs-can-be-cheaper-idUSBRE92D0RM20130314
-
Tuft research, https://csdd.tufts.edu/csddnews/2018/3/9/march-2016-tufts-csdd-rd-cost-study
References - Longer version
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-prices-idUSKBN0UM2FU20160109
-
https://msfaccess.org/pfizer-attempts-mislead-public-over-research-and-development-facts-tube-ads
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-art-of-setting-a-drug-price-1449628081
-
Light, Donald W., and Rebecca Warburton. "Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research." BioSocieties 6.1 (2011): 34-50.
-
http://www.pharmamyths.net/pharm_r_d___costly_myths_112980.htm
-
Light, Donald W., and Joel Lexchin. "Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?." BMJ (2012).