Unethical business research conduct: case studies and violations

Unethical Business Research Conduct

Business research is conducted for many reasons that are dependent on intended recipient of the research. For business marketers, research might include customer surveys of focus groups. When the research is for the development of a product, it can have a scientific basis and when it comes to stakeholders the research may include financial projections. This paper will therefore look at an article that focuses on some of the unethical business research conduct. The paper will clearly highlight some of the unethical research behavior that is involved and the people who are affected by these unethical research behaviors. The paper will further highlight how the unethical behavior has affected the organization, individuals and society at large. Finally a conclusion will be made on how the unethical behavior can be avoided or resolved.

The article "The case of Neurontin; Skewed Research in service selling" is an example of some unethical business research conduct that some pharmaceutical companies use when they intend to prove that their products are safe and effective. They therefore engage in practices that are suspect professionally and morally unethical. Neurontin, manufactured by Pfizer and Parker-Davis is a brand name for a drug gabapetin. It is a drug whose approved use is the treatment of epilepsy and post hepatic neuralgia though physicians prescribe Neurontin off-label for a wider range of conditions that include hot flashes, insomnia and certain types of tinnitus. The off-label uses have greatly increased and even supersede the approved uses. This is because, Pfizer was found to be urging the prescription of the drug by physicians for off-label uses which are very illegal. They are able to urge physicians due to some unethical research conduct that they apply. The pharmaceutical company's interests vested in having FDA approve some of the off-label uses and hence they conduct this research to see if the drug works for some other conditions. Therefore if they manage to convince the federal regulators that there exists evidence that is sufficient and that supports adequate safety and efficacy then the approval of the drug can be extended by FDA for these additional uses hence resulting to a broader market for the drug.

Even though the intention of some of these companies is not to submit studies to the FDA to extend the approved uses, the companies conduct research to publish the new benefits of drugs that they allege exist. Some of the unethical research behaviors that Pfizer is involved in include the delaying of reports that had found evidence of the efficacy of the drug, spinning or the interpreting negative data. They also bundle negative findings with positive studies to neutralize results. They would even go ahead to rewrite and recast the findings from legitimate researchers so that they make this results sound better than they look on the graphs. Recent studies that have been published indicate that when the documents were thoroughly analyzed found that the results that had been published of the randomized clinical trials on the off-label uses of Neurontin that were conducted by Pfizer and Parke -- Davis were skewed to show the efficacy and the data was manipulated so that it could support the findings that they desired.

This unethical behavior used two techniques; on-reporting of negative outcomes and the changing of outcomes of the trials in order for them to produce results that they desired. This unethical behavior entails the modification of the research purpose after it has been conducted. When the research protocols for Neurontin were examined by researches; they identified 20 clinical trials where only 12 were put into publication.8 among the published 12 showed that primary outcomes defined in the report were different from those in the original research protocol. Discrepancies included the introduction of new primary outcomes, failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcome and the failure to report more primary outcomes. Some of the primary research outcomes were not reported at all while some were reported as secondary outcomes. Changes that were published were not neutral rather; they led to a more favorable presentation of Neurontin's efficacy for the conditions that were unapproved.

The people who are injured from the unethical behavior by this pharmaceutical company are the patients who get the prescription of Neurontin.this especially occur when the prescription is on the off-label uses. This is because Neurontin may not be necessarily effective in some of this off-label uses that they are prescribed and may lead to more complication to the patients. These prescriptions may be ineffective and only worsen the current condition that the patient has and offer no recovery which is the intention of any drug that is prescribed.