When new drugs are created, it has to be evaluated by the advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration before it can be launched into the market.  The administration often have external experts, usually consisting of academic physicians, to help render unbiased and scientific judgements.  However, many of those physicians have financial interest in the drug companies that they are evaluating the drugs for.  In “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” Friedman states that, “unanimity is not always feasible,” – an unfortunate yet true statement.  In “Doctor’s Magical Thinking About Conflict of Interest,” doctors who are evaluating a drug that is released by a company that he or she is financially interested in, the approval rate of that drug increases from 52% to 84%.

I think that the conflict of interest in business has always and will always been a problem.  Where is the right balance between self interest and social interest?  Suppose there’s a new drug that can bring the company, and therefore, the doctors who have invested in the company, tons of money.  Some of the doctors evaluating the drug would be more inclined to approve the drug, regardless of the quality of the drug itself.  Monetary incentive can be a scary thing.  I think this not only impacts those in the company, but all the people that will purchase the underqualified drugs that got approved by biased doctors.  Even the doctors themselves and possibly their own family might get affected.  Sure, they may be able to avoid using whatever drug that they themselves evaluated, but there are other physicians that have done the same.  This creates a vicious cycle of unreliable drugs and possible deaths.  I think that doctors who have monetary ties with the company should be banned from evaluating those companies’ drugs.