Articles by Peter J. Pitts - Pharmaceutical Executive


Articles by Peter J. Pitts

Opinion: AARPeeved

Nov 1, 2006

Critics of the pharma industry have gotten good at selective reporting. So good, I've started tuning out. But, with a public official pulling similar punches, my ears can't help but perk up.

Opinion: Brussels Sprouts

Free-speech debates are nothing new in Europe. Now, pharma's entered the fray, as its representatives in the region's capital inch toward incremental changes in policies on DTC marketing. But, the sincerity of their efforts is up for debate.
May 1, 2006

I've just returned from Europe, where I spoke with various think tanks, thought leaders, and pharmaceutical companies on the issue they call "information-to-patients" (ItP). That's what we on the other side of the pond refer to as direct-to-consumer communications. In Europe, they choose to abstain from using the "A" word—advertising. But rhetoric counts. "Information to patients" seems quite paternalistic when compared with the new-worldly "direct-to-consumer" moniker.

Opinion: Uncle Sam, MD

Is having the government pursue a patent the best way of placing important discoveries in the public domain? It depends. Is putting the government in control of drug development in the best interests of public health? No.
Jun 1, 2005

Allowing the private sector to bear both the risk and the reward for successfully developing pharmaceutical, biologic, and medical technology products has been, and remains, the most successful, efficient way to meet our public health goals.

Back Page: Vioxx Populi

Jan 1, 2005

A congressional inquiry, a disgruntled whistle blower, the press smelling blood in the water, tort lawyers throwing blood in the water. What do they add up to? And does it really make patients safer?

Put More Science in Social Science

FDA regulates vague concepts such as fair balance on a case-by-case basis. Instead, the pharmaceutical industry should help the agency establish an evidence-based regulatory framework for DTC marketing.
Sep 1, 2004

At FDA, science rules. Decisions are based on facts. But even facts require interpretation, and that task is done with verve, excellence, and dedication by the agency's world-class experts. But what about social science? How does the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) engage social science to interpret vague concepts such as "fair balance" and "adequate provision"? The answer is that they know it when they see it-on a case-by-case basis. In common parlance, this is known as "judgment."


Click here