EyeonFDA Blog: Why FDA Needs to Be Clear About Social Media
.jpg)
Mark Senak, author of the EyeonFDA blog and a life sciences/healthcare social media enthusiast, wrote a fantastic piece yesterday that provides cogent ideas and insights into the need for FDA to expeditiously craft guidance on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.
Here are the facts. First, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, social media has fundamentally changed the way in which we interact with one another and ushered in a new era of communication. Unlike the old, so-called “broadcast communication method”—information is continuously streamed from a static source, websites, television, radio etc, to perspective customers and stakeholders—the new paradigm requires that communications must be personal, portable and participatory for effective messaging. Second, the primary source of information sought by most persons who use the Internet is healthcare and medical information. While much of the content is accurate, some is not; which may put persons seeking medical information at great risk. In other words, social media is not just about marketing and medical education; it is also about preserving public health.
The agency has historically been unable to issue guidance on new forms of communication. For example, FDA held its first public meeting in 1996 on Internet use by life sciences and healthcare companies. Sadly, the agency has yet to issue any official guidance on this topic. In late 2009, FDA held another public meeting and promised that draft guidance on the internet and social media would be forthcoming by the end of 2010. Unfortunately the guidance did not materialize in 2010 and it has been delayed twice in 2011. Recently, the agency publicly reaffirmed its commitment to issuing the guidance but without a specific timetable for its release. Consequently, it is anyone’s guess when or if the guidance will be released.
Unlike many, I do not believe that FDA guidance on the Internet and social media is absolutely necessary. However, I will admit that issuance of said guidance will provide drug and healthcare companies with some of the assurances that they need in order to actively use social media to engage patients, physicians and other stakeholders. For this reason alone, FDA ought to issue the guidance (which is never perfect and always a work in progress) and end the social media stalemate that currently exists. Failure to do so may have serious consequences on the public health of many Americans.
Hat tip to Mark!
Until next time...
Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!
William Hooper author of the.jpg)
Science and medical conference season is in full swing and tens of thousands of persons are attending scientific and medical meeting all over the US. While social media is no longer a new “thing” only a few scientific and medical societies understand its power and ways in which it may be harnessed to improve the experiences of their members who attend their national meetings. 
Like it or not, the possibility of money and profit drives science just like it does any other field. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a few genetic testing companies 
While the debate rages on over the use of social media in the life sciences industry, industry experts and insiders have largely ignored the growing importance of mobile healthcare and its use by healthcare professionals and patients. Consumers and professionals are increasingly using their mobile devices for healthcare information. They are also interacting with healthcare providers and colleagues on their mobile phones. 85% of US consumers have cell phones and growing vs. only 65% of Americans which have broadband access. Further, the divide between mobile use and broadband Internet access is increasing. According to a Manhattan Research report 70% of Physicians say PDAs/Smartphones are "essential" to their practice.
A recent study conducted by University of California San Diego Extension ranks careers in the health and life sciences fields at the top for recent college graduates. (2).jpg)
Earlier this week, Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog, offered his i
Pfizer was the first to bring us ED (erectile dysfunction) and now two companies—one large (Johnson and Johnson) and one small (Sciele Pharma)—are daring to boldly go where no MAN has gone before: to conquer PE aka premature ejaculation!
I have refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because there wasn’t much I could add to the debate. That said, while reading an article in a local paper on bacterial antibiotic resistance and how to minimize it, the author—an infectious disease doc—offered a telling statistic that identified the root problem with our current healthcare system. According to the article, 65% of the time, physicians will prescribe antibiotics to patients suffering from upper respiratory tract infections who demand them, whether or not they are warranted. In marked contrast, 12% of patients with upper respiratory tract infections who don’t ask for antibiotics receive antibiotic prescriptions. The bottom line: physicians give patients the drugs and treatment they demand because they are afraid of losing them as customers knowing full well the patients will go to another physician who will give them what they want! After all, physicians are in business and to stay in business they need to make enough money to cover their overhead and make a profit. However, over prescribing antibiotics is one of the main reasons why we are in the midst of an epidemic of infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. In my opinion, business outcomes should never supersede or trump medical or public health outcomes..jpg)
It has been a long standing practice of mine to avoid co-mingling science and religious issues in any of the materials that I post online. I have refrained from doing this because I believe that enough tension already exists between religious advocates and scientists. However, I was unable to control myself today after my wife pointed out two interesting articles in Wednesday’s New York Times.(2).jpg)
We were able to entice Berci Mesko —a Hungarian medical student who writes at 
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any stranger, a new pharmaceutical assessment tool called the .jpg)
People who become scientists spend many years learning how to design, conduct, collect and analyze data from the experiments that they conduct. The ultimate goal of this seemingly endless exercise is to craft peer-reviewed publications that either support or refute the underlying hypotheses used to initiate the experiments in the first place. As part of our training, we are repeatedly reminded that it is our obligation to fastidiously and accurately report the results of our experiments and to assume “full ownership of the manuscripts and publications" that we author. The idea of allowing a person who didn’t participate in the design or execution of the research, to craft a manuscript for peer review is something that is virtually unheard of in the scientific community and, in the minds of some scientists, tantamount to scientific misconduct or fraud.