Why Can't Merck Get it Right?
I think the old adage–“You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”– is an apt description of the corporate culture that currently exists at Merck. Merck used to be one of the most emulated and lauded pharmaceutical companies in the world. It had an outstanding reputation for “doing good science” and many of its products were first in class and highly regarded. Then came the Vioxx debacle. Many analysts and pundits thought that the Vioxx controversy signaled the beginning of the end for Merck. However, much to everyone’s surprise, Merck was able to quickly recover from its Vioxx missteps (despite thousands of impending lawsuits) and the company’s stock price is the highest that it has been in 5 years. Nevertheless, the Vioxx scandal now appears to have been supplanted by another controversy; this time, over Gardasil, Merck’s recently approved cervical cancer vaccine.
There is general consensus among physicians and public health officials that Gardasil is a timely and much-needed product. The worldwide morbidity and morality associated with cervical cancer has risen sharply in recent years and vaccination with Gardasil will likely help to reduce the global incidence of the disease. Early buzz surrounding Gardasil suggested that it was a “good product” prompting many analyst to proclaim that “ Merck had hit a home run” with the product. These early rave reviews somehow induced public health officials in several states, like Texas, to make vaccination with Gardasil mandatory for girls 11 years of age or older. When I first heard these reports, I thought to myself ….”Hmmm….. This is very curious …. Something is wrong with this picture. The product just received FDA approval and aside from the results of human clinical trials conducted by Merck (which are not available to the public) there is little clinical experience or adequate safety data available for the product. So, what induced the Texas state legislature to require that vaccination against cervical cancer be mandatory? The Texas decision became much clearer when I learned that Merck had invested substantial sums of money into lobbying various state legislators to make Gardasil vaccination mandatory. Shortly thereafter, the NY Times reported that Merck had decided to abandon its cervical cancer vaccination lobbying campaign. This was likely a result of the firestorm of criticism that Merck received after its lobbying campaign was made public.
Merck’s attempt to use its substantial financial resources and influence to lobby politicians to pass legislation requiring mandatory Gardasil vaccination of school age children is disingenuous and repugnant. Legislation demanding the mandatory use of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals products should be based on clinical and public health safety and efficacy data; not on the lobbying power of a pharmaceutical company. Also, Merck is the first of several companies to receive regulatory approval for a cervical cancer vaccine (other products should be on the market within the next 2 to 3 years). If cervical cancer vaccination was to become mandatory today, Merck would stand to profit handsomely from the sale of Gardasil because it would be the only company with a cervical cancer vaccine on the market (sounds like a monopoly?). It seems to me that profits not an altruistic concern about public health was really behind Merck’s Gardasil lobbying efforts.
You would think that after the Vioxx debacle, Merck would try to improve its poor public image becoming a kinder, gentler and more morally-conscious company. Apparently, arrogance and hubris are encouraged at Merck!
On a personal note, my wife and I already decided to vaccinate my daughter against cervical cancer when she is old enough. Why would we not want to protect our daughter against the possibility of cervical cancer?. That said, clinical efficacy and product safety not the lobbying muscle of powerful, multinational pharmaceutical companies should be the deciding factors when we immunize our daughters to prevent cervical cancer!
