Social Media: Pharma's Continuing Web 2.0 Inertia
I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....
The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.
The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution. I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”
Until next time...
Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)
blog comments powered by Disqus
Despite dire predictions, the biotechnology industry appears to be weathering the recession better than most. According to a
.jpg)
BioJobBlog and 
Medtronics, the world's largest medical-device company, 
The US economy has lost about 7.1 million jobs since December 2007 and nationwide unemployment is hovering around 8.5 percent. Despite the lost of about 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years and unprecedented consolidation taking place in the life sciences sector—Merck-Schering Plough, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech—the job prospects for scientists at biotech companies, medical devices and diagnostics, and government appear to be stronger than anticipated. While drug discovery and sales jobs may be scare, there are rapidly emerging opportunities in the fields of medical communications, regulatory affairs, biomanufacturing, clinical trials management , bioengineering, medical devices/diagnostics and website development and management.
As many of you know, the life sciences industry, one of the most highly regulated industries of the economy has been hesitant and reluctant to embrace social media to reach out to patients, physicians and the lay public. This is because the US Food and Drug Administration, specifically Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (.jpg)
I want to let my readers know that a beta-version of 
An article in today’s New York Times
Siemens, the Germany engineering, electronic and healthcare company is planning to 
.jpg)
day, my good friend Pete learned that he had prostate cancer. His prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels were slightly elevated over the past few years (they were in a gray zone that made a definitive diagnosis difficult without doing a biopsy). After being urged by his wife and urologist, he had the biopsy performed and, unfortunately, a diagnosis of prostate cancer was made. Hopefully, his cancer is localized to the prostate and will be easily treated via conventional therapies. As many of you may know, prostate cancer is easily treat and the cure rates high if it is detected early.
