In 2007, the UK government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King, laid out a ‘universal code of ethics’, which was a sort of ‘Hippocratic Oath for Scientists‘ for all researchers and scientists across the globe. The reasons for the introduction of this code was because of the increase in amoral breaches that were becoming apparent within the very fibre of the scientific research communities worldwide. The UK government has already adopted this code of ethics.
The seven principles of the code are intended to guide scientist’s actions, and are defined here:
- Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.
- Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.
- Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.
- Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
- Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.
- Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.
- Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
Please notice the clauses that protect against corruption, that respects the rights of ordinary people, prevents disinfomation or propaganda, and promotes mutual sharing of information for the common good and adherence to The Law.
There is no such scientific code of ethics like this in the US. But here is one of the current definitions of the US modern version of the Hippocratic Oath (which applies only to the medical and not the scientific research personnel) as defined by Dr Louis Lasagna. There is much about humanity in this oath, but very little to do with morals, corruption or indeed the Law. This is certainly not emphasised.
Unfortunately, the US Medical Profession and its researchers(read Big Pharma) have not yet taken up this modern version of the Hippocratic Oath for Scientists. Perhaps this is understandable since even recent and modern US medical research has had such a poor and desperate history. See :
A History of Modern Medical and Psychiatric Experimentation in the USA(1965 – 2005)
This modern history is truly disgusting and horrific, involving not only Big Pharma and Medicine, but also the CIA and even President Bush himself — and in its reading, brings to mind all too well the abhorrent Nazi medical experiments and practices on the Jews during the Second World War.
But, if truth be told, my biggest gripe against modern Big Pharma is the power they have over both the Food and Drugs Administration as well as the US government. And my biggest reasons and suspicions of Big Pharma and the whole medical lobby are based mainly on statistics.
According to the NIA’s report(2001), over 784,000 people die annually due to medical mistakes. Comparatively, the 2001 annual death rate for heart disease was 699,697 and the annual death rate for cancer was 553,251. Iatrogenic death(death due to medical mistakes and drugs) are , undoubtedly, the major cause of death in the US.
Click here to see a breakdown of all the Iatrogenic Causes of Death in the US
The FDA Exposed: An Interview With David Graham, Vioxx WhistleBlower
The Increasing Corruption in the US Medical and Pharmaceutical Sectors
See the related post, Part 2 – Big Pharma: The Success of The Germ Theory
slowsmile. no doubt history is often somewhat of myth sometime for benign reasons and the prevalent theory even is science, built on a theory can have unintended consequences. One would think that the amount of money that could be made with a real cure would spur individual scientists in a world full of investment cash chasing the next big things would eventually find a real cure, because when you describe the UK’s se3ven principles as “and promotes mutual sharing of information for the common good” I do not think that means one cannot hold secrets in their drug patents.
Jimmy…I completely agree. But I guess the UK has recognised the corruption and bad business practice that really exists now within the Big Pharma sector worldwide – not just in the US. But it is also true that both UK and Europe have tighter safety and effacy controls on Big Pharma – with less “influence” from Big Pharma than occurs in the US.
You say that they chase the next big thing – but where are the cures for cancer, hepatitis, HIV etc ? This is why I question the Germ Theory.
The Cellular Theory believes that that the microbes inside us can turn from good to bad – they can morph from good bacteria to mycoplasm to bad virus to bad yeast to bad fungi due to the different healthy and unhealthy states of the body “terrain”. So this theory is all about maintaining a healthy body “terrain” – and not surprisingly – is very similar in principle to ancient practices like Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic Medicine.
slowsmile, I imagine that both theories are true in different circumstances. Too bad polarity, partisanship, preferences and my way or the highway predominates. But when I was speaking of money available, I meant money and scientists outside of Big Pharma influence, after all, many Doctors, research scientist, investors, are not fans of Big Pharma. Assuming as you say Big Pharma may have vested interest in comforting us instead of curing us, why are no funded startups or anti Big Pharma initiatives finding the findable cures either? So much money could be made by those not under the “spell” of Big Pharma really going for “the cure” because they are not weighted down with the size and scope of the legacy research and products of Big Pharma?
In answer to this – in my recent trawlings on the internet the reason is because when college biochem graduates come out of Uni and start research companies – they desperately need the funding for they’re new drugs, and the only funding they can hope for is from Big Pharma. Putting a new drug thru research is certainly not trivial – it costs $200 million to put a drug thru research before general release to the public. Well the only people that can afford this are Big Pharma. Small companies all have to do this because of the cost. So Big Pharma, indirectly, controls its smaller competition.
This is also why companies making Traditional Chinese Medicines, Alternate Therapies etc. cannot “legally” show proof of purpose and be described as cures. They just can’t affford to prove it. Big Pharma controls all this ….and the US govt does nothing…