Title: Associate Professor
University: Texas State University
Email: mogull@txstate.edu
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mogull
Website: http://mogull.wp.txstate.edu
Description of Work:
Scott A. Mogull is an Associate Professor of scientific and technical communication in the Department of English at Texas State University in San Marcos, TX. His research focuses on scientific and medical communication, scientific communication ethics, and commercialization of scientific technology. He has published research in the fields of microbiology, technical communication, medical writing, and medical rhetoric. He has recently had the book Scientific and Medical Communication: A Guide for Effective Practice published by Routlege (2017). For nearly a decade, Mogull has worked in the biotechnology, biodefense, and molecular diagnostics industry as a scientific communicator, product manager, marketing manager, and coordinator of global technical information. Since 2008, he has been on the editorial board of Technical Communication Quarterly the journal of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW).
Symposium Submission:
Ethics of Data Presentation in Science Commercialization and the Impact on Health Care Consumers
Since the 1980s, commercialization has increasingly become a major goal of many medical researchers, which is in contrast to the general pursuit of knowledge that historically was the mission of scientific and medical research (Holloway, 2015). Concerns of information secrecy and selective communication in science commercialization, which leads to a state of ignorance outside of the organization, have been raised (Boggio, Ballabeni, & Hemenway, 2016; Evans, 2010; Fernandez Pinto, 2015). Due to the secrecy and distortion of information in science commercialization, scholars are concerned that future scientific progress will be impeded (David, 2005; Evans, 2010; McCain, 1991). Although concerns of science commercialization have been raised, the fields of technical communication, medical rhetoric, and science and technology studies lack a detailed example that illustrates the scope of the problem and explore solutions. In a previous book chapter, I provided a comprehensive case study that illustrates these concerns but also shows that countermeasures to compensate for industry exploitation may only be of limited effect. In case of Treximet, a therapeutic drug to treat migraines headaches, the original clinical study data showed the drug was an effective first choice for treatment in females but not males. Yet, in both the package insert and a scientific journal article, the pharmaceutical company (or company-sponsored authors) pooled clinical trial data from both female and male participants showing data through a rhetorically crafted lens that would lead physicians and scientists to the false conclusion that Treximet was more effective for “all patients” than either component of Treximet (sumatriptan and naproxen sodium) or placebo. Notably, the rhetorical lens through which the same data was communicated led to qualitatively different conclusions. As illustrated in this case study, scientific information in science commercialization is secondary and subject to obfuscation and distortion so that the information communicated outside of an organization aligns with the primary goal of selling a product. This secrecy and bias misleads physicians in prescribing effective treatment and scientific researchers in researching more advanced treatments. Furthermore, overly simple conclusions of data in science commercialization lacks the intricacies and nuances, as well as the opposing views, that are hallmarks of scientific discourse. Although the scientific community has responded to pharmaceutical exploitation of the scientific literature through regulation of scientific publication that requires submission of preclinical study design to publically available databases, such countermeasures are of limited effect as the Treximet data has been available in the U.S. FDA website throughout this period of communication. The next question to be explored and presented in a research article is the impact of misleading data communication on health care consumers during science commercialization. Ironically, the pharmaceutical company recommends that health care consumers discuss taking Treximet with their doctor despite health care professionals being misleading information to obfuscate inferior performance of Treximet in male populations. Thus, the recommendation to talk with a physician creates somewhat of an information conundrum because professionals are not provided with known clinical trial information that would be beneficial to facilitate prescribing a therapeutic drug that is most effective in males. In this research, I examine e-health care consumer response to Treximet. Through ethnographic observations of multiple online health care consumer discussion forums for migraines, various cohorts of e-health care consumers were found to have similar confusion and reactions to Treximet. Preliminary analysis shows that many e-health care consumers are more educated and skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry claims than has been suggested in some accounts. Yet, some health care consumers express some uncertainty from their own analysis and appear to embody the narrative that medicine is “too complex” for the general public.
References
Boggio, A., Ballabeni, A., & Hemenway, D. (2016). Basic research and knowledge production modes: A view from the Harvard Medical School. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(2), 163–193.
David, P. A. (2005). From keeping ‘nature’s secrets’ to the institutionalization of ‘open science.’ In R. Ghosh (Ed.), Code: Collaborative Ownership and the Digital Economy (pp. 85–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Evans, J. A. (2010). Industry collaboration, scientific sharing, and the dissemination of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 45(5), 757–791.
Fernandez Pinto, M. (2015). Tensions in agnotology: Normativity in the studies of commercially driven ignorance. Social Studies of Science, 45(2), 294–315.
Holloway, K. J. (2015). Normalizing complaint: Scientists and the challenge of commercialization. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 744–765.
McCain, K. W. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 491–516.