Public science communication is one of the most important "non-core" activities in the pharmaceutical industry and in science more broadly.
When the scientific community fails to educate the public about science and its impact and role in human life and modern-day civilizational achievements, all sorts of bad actors fill the void of communication with anti-science theories and all sorts of fear-mongering. That sometimes leads to real and dangerous backlash on things that are crucial for the public prosperity and in edge cases -- even human survival in the long run.
I think we need to celebrate every successful science communications project as much as scientific breakthroughs themselves.
It's the myth of Prometheus and the theft of the secret of fire all over again. His reward for keeping humans warm in winter was to be chained to a bolder and have his liver consumed by day by eagles, only to grow back at night.
This is a great piece. I agree on the 'boring but important' components of longevity. I worry that GLP-1s have distracted us (though get that they have major benefits for many)
As for industry's image: the problem is that most of the public - especially the US public - see only industry's shadow, reflected through the murky payer/insurer world. Health is a touchy topic; here in the UK we think we have a right to free healthcare, and no one can touch our hugely overburdened system because of some abstract, economically outdated notion of 'free at the point of access'.
In the US you have to pay crazy money to access even the basics.
Neither system is ideal.
But industry is tarnished for being part of them (and for having done some silly stuff, like the AIDS trials in SA and J&J's issues, GSK in China...)
Even as an unthinking journalist (...ouch!!)..I share the frustration around why pharma is seen as SO awful. Even after the Covid vaccines. It just can't do anything right, it seems.
Maybe direct to consumer will open up a new relationship. Better, still, AI will make R&D so cheap that products will be easier for patients to buy outside of the insurer system. Crikey, folk pay £800 for an iPhone. What would they pay for Apple iDrugs?
Also, to my surprise, if you will go to Africa and try to build a clinical trials center that would go fast and be cheaper that can significantly improce the lives of the locals, everyone around the world will condemn this and the initiative would be closed or demonetized - it is a paradox.
Public science communication is one of the most important "non-core" activities in the pharmaceutical industry and in science more broadly.
When the scientific community fails to educate the public about science and its impact and role in human life and modern-day civilizational achievements, all sorts of bad actors fill the void of communication with anti-science theories and all sorts of fear-mongering. That sometimes leads to real and dangerous backlash on things that are crucial for the public prosperity and in edge cases -- even human survival in the long run.
I think we need to celebrate every successful science communications project as much as scientific breakthroughs themselves.
Thanks for the article.
Pharma should be celebrated - and the bolder and more impactful - the better
Must read.
It's the myth of Prometheus and the theft of the secret of fire all over again. His reward for keeping humans warm in winter was to be chained to a bolder and have his liver consumed by day by eagles, only to grow back at night.
That is a very good analogy - pharma Prometheus
Beautifully written.
This is a great piece. I agree on the 'boring but important' components of longevity. I worry that GLP-1s have distracted us (though get that they have major benefits for many)
As for industry's image: the problem is that most of the public - especially the US public - see only industry's shadow, reflected through the murky payer/insurer world. Health is a touchy topic; here in the UK we think we have a right to free healthcare, and no one can touch our hugely overburdened system because of some abstract, economically outdated notion of 'free at the point of access'.
In the US you have to pay crazy money to access even the basics.
Neither system is ideal.
But industry is tarnished for being part of them (and for having done some silly stuff, like the AIDS trials in SA and J&J's issues, GSK in China...)
Even as an unthinking journalist (...ouch!!)..I share the frustration around why pharma is seen as SO awful. Even after the Covid vaccines. It just can't do anything right, it seems.
Maybe direct to consumer will open up a new relationship. Better, still, AI will make R&D so cheap that products will be easier for patients to buy outside of the insurer system. Crikey, folk pay £800 for an iPhone. What would they pay for Apple iDrugs?
Also, to my surprise, if you will go to Africa and try to build a clinical trials center that would go fast and be cheaper that can significantly improce the lives of the locals, everyone around the world will condemn this and the initiative would be closed or demonetized - it is a paradox.
“You go into biotech because you’re obsessed with biology and you think you can make something that helps people.”
So deeply resonate with this!