The first step of research is to formulate an accurate and precise research question which could have come from previous studies, or of a particular need or interest, and even for policy making. When formulating the research question, it is important to define the terms in which this research will be done.
The main assumption that is found in the drug industry is that conclusions from published research found in prestigious journals are considered valid merely because they have been already scrutinized and published. It is an assumption that comes from accepting things as valid simply because we are familiar with them, in this case, it originates from a recognised journal or academic professional and even renowned universities. However, this assumption found in the drug industry goes against one of the critical thinking rules which are to evaluate results. Both reason and evidence should be provided. There is a huge bias in the drug industry because there is a growing number of researchers, universities, academics, professionals and more, who are compensated in one way or another by pharmaceuticals who need their drugs tested. This biased should also be considered in the discussions of the papers. However, it is not. They should also be scrutinized by the peer review. However, most of the peer review team does not have access to that information.
Another critical thinking rule is to back up arguments using evidence. As it was showed by Whoriskey. (2012), there was unpublished research which showed particular dangers of the drugs tested. All the evidence should be scrutinized by the researchers, and contradictory evidence must be assessed as well as strengths and weaknesses. If a conclusion cannot be drawn due to lack of statistical validity, but there is a possibility that it could still be true, further research should be done, and new research questions should be formulated which is the first step in doing research. However, due to the greed of drug companies to accept their drugs, most of these evidence and possible negative conclusions, they cover or do not perform further research (Whoriskey, 2012).
The sixth rule of critical thinking says that it is important to accept results, whether positive or negative. According to the latest results (Whoriskey, 2012) about certain drugs, pharmaceuticals did not admit they committed a mistake. As a consequence, they are now in a position where they need to restore their trust., Journals also need to improve their publishing process. Ultimately, what Whoriskey was able to describe was a process of research, publications, and application of those drugs that is full of biases.
Another problem is that these drugs are tested and to be used with humans, which bring further ethical complications. According to Whoriskey (2012), the drug company did not consider reviewing existing dangerous knowledge, and in fact, they did not want to expose it, which brings severe ethical implications as they did not weight the consequences. The result was that before a specific drug was taken away from the shelves, many people died due to that negligence.
As a consumer, there are two different biases. One from the perspective of the client who believes that everything that has been approved by the correspondent body is safe, even if it has certain side effects. It is a bias because the client from this perspective does not take the time nor is its job to do so, to evaluate whether the evidence from the research done on that drug is valid or not. The results so far were that many people took drugs thinking it was going to be good for their health and in fact they died.
The second bias from a client perspective is that they believe that the whole drug industry is a business to make them richer and they would pass any drug if they could, ignoring the consequences or side effects drugs could bring. These maybe are the least, but it is still a bias that exists, and there are clients who prefer not to have any medication because they think the whole drug industry is corrupted.
References
Whoriskey, P. (2012, November 24). As drug industry's influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?utm_term=.a3e240fa061d
.
