Transparency is Good in Theory, But Not in Practice

I attended SMi's Social Media in the Pharmaceutical Industry conference this week and, as usual whenever I attend these conferences in the UK, I meet some very interesting people and get a new perspective on important issues that usually are not discussed in the U.S.

Take ethics, for example. I touched upon that topic in my presentation ("The Sorry State of Pharma Mobile Apps and What to Do About It"). But the presentation by Nick Broughton (@NickBroughton) was 100% devoted to "implementing social media ethics" in the pharmaceutical industry.

One of the principles Broughton espoused was "the first obligation is to act morally, not just compliantly." Pharma's first obligation, said Broughton, is to "act well. There's no defense if you make a mistake, especially in social media. When the rules are not clear -- and often they're not -- you have to rely on moral principles to make decisions that you can justify."

One of the moral principles discussed by several presenters at the conference was "transparency," which is very important for the industry these days. Everyone at the conference, I'm sure, would agree with EFPIA (the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations):  "The pharmaceutical industry recognises that it has a responsibility to show leadership in advancing responsible transparency."

The problem, I soon learned, is that transparency is good in theory, but not in practice when it comes to revealing payments to patient bloggers who "contribute" content to pharma-owned sites.

Read more »