Sloppy Science Happens More Than You Think
Manipulating DNA through gene editing.
The media loves to tout scientific breakthroughs, and few are as toutable – and in turn, have been as touted – as CRISPR. This method of targeted DNA excision was discovered in bacteria, which use it as an adaptive immune system to combat reinfection with a previously encountered virus.
Shouldn't the editors at a Nature journal know better than to have published an incorrect paper in the first place?
It is cool on so many levels: not only is the basic function fascinating, reminding us that we still have more to discover about even simple organisms that we thought we knew so well, but the ability it grants us to remove and replace any DNA of interest has almost limitless applications in both the lab and the clinic. As if that didn't make it sexy enough, add in a bicoastal, male-female, very public and relatively ugly patent battle, and the CRISPR story is irresistible.
And then last summer, a bombshell dropped. The prestigious journal Nature Methods published a paper in which the authors claimed that CRISPR could cause many unintended mutations, rendering it unfit for clinical use. Havoc duly ensued; stocks in CRISPR-based companies plummeted. Thankfully, the authors of the offending paper were responsible, good scientists; they reassessed, then recanted. Their attention- and headline- grabbing results were wrong, and they admitted as much, leading Nature Methods to formally retract the paper this spring.
How did this happen? Shouldn't the editors at a Nature journal know better than to have published this in the first place?
Alas, high-profile scientific journals publish misleading and downright false results fairly regularly. Some errors are unavoidable – that's how the scientific method works. Hypotheses and conclusions will invariably be overturned as new data becomes available and new technologies are developed that allow for deeper and deeper studies. That's supposed to happen. But that's not what we're talking about here. Nor are we talking about obvious offenses like outright plagiarism. We're talking about mistakes that are avoidable, and that still have serious ramifications.
The cultures of both industry and academia promote research that is poorly designed and even more poorly analyzed.
Two parties are responsible for a scientific publication, and thus two parties bear the blame when things go awry: the scientists who perform and submit the work, and the journals who publish it. Unfortunately, both are incentivized for speedy and flashy publications, and not necessarily for correct publications. It is hardly a surprise, then, that we end up with papers that are speedy and flashy – and not necessarily correct.
"Scientists don't lie and submit falsified data," said Andy Koff, a professor of Molecular Biology at Sloan Kettering Institute, the basic research arm of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Richard Harris, who wrote the book on scientific misconduct running the gamut from unconscious bias and ignorance to more malicious fraudulence, largely concurs (full disclosure: I reviewed the book here). "Scientists want to do good science and want to be recognized as such," he said. But even so, the cultures of both industry and academia promote research that is poorly designed and even more poorly analyzed. In Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Millions, Harris describes how scientists must constantly publish in order to maintain their reputations and positions, to get grants and tenure and students. "They are disincentivized from doing that last extra experiment to prove their results," he said; it could prove too risky if it could cost them a publication.
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus founded Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks the retraction of scientific papers, in 2010. Oransky pointed out that blinded peer review – the pride and joy of the scientific publishing enterprise – is a large part of the problem. "Pre-publication peer review is still important, but we can't treat it like the only check on the system. Papers are being reviewed by non-experts, and reviewers are asked to review papers only tangentially related to their field. Moreover, most peer reviewers don't look at the underlying or raw data, even when it is available. How then can they tell if the analysis is flawed or the data is accurate?" he wondered.
Mistaken publications also erode the public's opinion of legitimate science, which is problematic since that opinion isn't especially high to begin with.
Koff agreed that anonymous peer review is valuable, but severely flawed. "Blinded review forces a collective view of importance," he said. "If an article disagrees with the reviewer's worldview, the article gets rejected or forced to adhere to that worldview – even if that means pushing the data someplace it shouldn't necessarily go." We have lost the scientific principle behind review, he thinks, which was to critically analyze a paper. But instead of challenging fundamental assumptions within a paper, reviewers now tend to just ask for more and more supplementary data. And don't get him started on editors. "Editors are supposed to arbitrate between reviewers and writers and they have completely abdicated this responsibility, at every journal. They do not judge, and that's a real failing."
Harris laments the wasted time, effort, and resources that result when erroneous ideas take hold in a field, not to mention lives lost when drug discovery is predicated on basic science findings that end up being wrong. "When no one takes the time, care, and money to reproduce things, science isn't stopping – but it is slowing down," he noted. Mistaken publications also erode the public's opinion of legitimate science, which is problematic since that opinion isn't especially high to begin with.
Scientists and publishers don't only cause the problem, though – they may also provide the solution. Both camps are increasingly recognizing and dealing with the crisis. The self-proclaimed "data thugs" Nick Brown and James Heathers use pretty basic arithmetic to reveal statistical errors in papers. The microbiologist Elisabeth Bik scans the scientific literature for problematic images "in her free time." The psychologist Brian Nosek founded the Center for Open Science, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting openness, integrity, and reproducibility in scientific research. The Nature family of journals – yes, the one responsible for the latest CRISPR fiasco – has its authors complete a checklist to combat irreproducibility, à la Atul Gawande. And Nature Communications, among other journals, uses transparent peer review, in which authors can opt to have the reviews of their manuscript published anonymously alongside the completed paper. This practice "shows people how the paper evolved," said Koff "and keeps the reviewer and editor accountable. Did the reviewer identify the major problems with the paper? Because there are always major problems with a paper."
Breakthrough therapies are breaking patients' banks. Key changes could improve access, experts say.
Single-treatment therapies are revolutionizing medicine. But insurers and patients wonder whether they can afford treatment and, if they can, whether the high costs are worthwhile.
CSL Behring’s new gene therapy for hemophilia, Hemgenix, costs $3.5 million for one treatment, but helps the body create substances that allow blood to clot. It appears to be a cure, eliminating the need for other treatments for many years at least.
Likewise, Novartis’s Kymriah mobilizes the body’s immune system to fight B-cell lymphoma, but at a cost $475,000. For patients who respond, it seems to offer years of life without the cancer progressing.
These single-treatment therapies are at the forefront of a new, bold era of medicine. Unfortunately, they also come with new, bold prices that leave insurers and patients wondering whether they can afford treatment and, if they can, whether the high costs are worthwhile.
“Most pharmaceutical leaders are there to improve and save people’s lives,” says Jeremy Levin, chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, and immediate past chairman of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization. If the therapeutics they develop are too expensive for payers to authorize, patients aren’t helped.
“The right to receive care and the right of pharmaceuticals developers to profit should never be at odds,” Levin stresses. And yet, sometimes they are.
Leigh Turner, executive director of the bioethics program, University of California, Irvine, notes this same tension between drug developers that are “seeking to maximize profits by charging as much as the market will bear for cell and gene therapy products and other medical interventions, and payers trying to control costs while also attempting to provide access to medical products with promising safety and efficacy profiles.”
Why Payers Balk
Health insurers can become skittish around extremely high prices, yet these therapies often accompany significant overall savings. For perspective, the estimated annual treatment cost for hemophilia exceeds $300,000. With Hemgenix, payers would break even after about 12 years.
But, in 12 years, will the patient still have that insurer? Therein lies the rub. U.S. payers, are used to a “pay-as-you-go” model, in which the lifetime costs of therapies typically are shared by multiple payers over many years, as patients change jobs. Single treatment therapeutics eliminate that cost-sharing ability.
"As long as formularies are based on profits to middlemen…Americans’ healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket,” says Patricia Goldsmith, the CEO of CancerCare.
“There is a phenomenally complex, bureaucratic reimbursement system that has grown, layer upon layer, during several decades,” Levin says. As medicine has innovated, payment systems haven’t kept up.
Therefore, biopharma companies begin working with insurance companies and their pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which act on an insurer’s behalf to decide which drugs to cover and by how much, early in the drug approval process. Their goal is to make sophisticated new drugs available while still earning a return on their investment.
New Payment Models
Pay-for-performance is one increasingly popular strategy, Turner says. “These models typically link payments to evidence generation and clinically significant outcomes.”
A biotech company called bluebird bio, for example, offers value-based pricing for Zynteglo, a $2.8 million possible cure for the rare blood disorder known as beta thalassaemia. It generally eliminates patients’ need for blood transfusions. The company is so sure it works that it will refund 80 percent of the cost of the therapy if patients need blood transfusions related to that condition within five years of being treated with Zynteglo.
In his February 2023 State of the Union speech, President Biden proposed three pilot programs to reduce drug costs. One of them, the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model calls on the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to establish outcomes-based agreements with manufacturers for certain cell and gene therapies.
A mortgage-style payment system is another, albeit rare, approach. Amortized payments spread the cost of treatments over decades, and let people change employers without losing their healthcare benefits.
Only about 14 percent of all drugs that enter clinical trials are approved by the FDA. Pharma companies, therefore, have an exigent need to earn a profit.
The new payment models that are being discussed aren’t solutions to high prices, says Bill Kramer, senior advisor for health policy at Purchaser Business Group on Health (PBGH), a nonprofit that seeks to lower health care costs. He points out that innovative pricing models, although well-intended, may distract from the real problem of high prices. They are attempts to “soften the blow. The best thing would be to charge a reasonable price to begin with,” he says.
Instead, he proposes making better use of research on cost and clinical effectiveness. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducts such research in the U.S., determining whether the benefits of specific drugs justify their proposed prices. ICER is an independent non-profit research institute. Its reports typically assess the degrees of improvement new therapies offer and suggest prices that would reflect that. “Publicizing that data is very important,” Kramer says. “Their results aren’t used to the extent they could and should be.” Pharmaceutical companies tend to price their therapies higher than ICER’s recommendations.
Drug Development Costs Soar
Drug developers have long pointed to the onerous costs of drug development as a reason for high prices.
A 2020 study found the average cost to bring a drug to market exceeded $1.1 billion, while other studies have estimated overall costs as high as $2.6 billion. The development timeframe is about 10 years. That’s because modern therapeutics target precise mechanisms to create better outcomes, but also have high failure rates. Only about 14 percent of all drugs that enter clinical trials are approved by the FDA. Pharma companies, therefore, have an exigent need to earn a profit.
Skewed Incentives Increase Costs
Pricing isn’t solely at the discretion of pharma companies, though. “What patients end up paying has much more to do with their PBMs than the actual price of the drug,” Patricia Goldsmith, CEO, CancerCare, says. Transparency is vital.
PBMs control patients’ access to therapies at three levels, through price negotiations, pricing tiers and pharmacy management.
When negotiating with drug manufacturers, Goldsmith says, “PBMs exchange a preferred spot on a formulary (the insurer’s or healthcare provider’s list of acceptable drugs) for cash-base rebates.” Unfortunately, 25 percent of the time, those rebates are not passed to insurers, according to the PBGH report.
Then, PBMs use pricing tiers to steer patients and physicians to certain drugs. For example, Kramer says, “Sometimes PBMs put a high-cost brand name drug in a preferred tier and a lower-cost competitor in a less preferred, higher-cost tier.” As the PBGH report elaborates, “(PBMs) are incentivized to include the highest-priced drugs…since both manufacturing rebates, as well as the administrative fees they charge…are calculated as a percentage of the drug’s price.
Finally, by steering patients to certain pharmacies, PBMs coordinate patients’ access to treatments, control patients’ out-of-pocket costs and receive management fees from the pharmacies.
Therefore, Goldsmith says, “As long as formularies are based on profits to middlemen…Americans’ healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket.”
Transparency into drug pricing will help curb costs, as will new payment strategies. What will make the most impact, however, may well be the development of a new reimbursement system designed to handle dramatic, breakthrough drugs. As Kramer says, “We need a better system to identify drugs that offer dramatic improvements in clinical care.”
In today's podcast episode, law professor Gaia Bernstein talks about the challenges of keeping control over our thoughts and actions, even when some powerful forces are pushing in the other direction.
Each afternoon, kids walk through my neighborhood, on their way back home from school, and almost all of them are walking alone, staring down at their phones. It's a troubling site. This daily parade of the zombie children just can’t bode well for the future.
That’s one reason I felt like Gaia Bernstein’s new book was talking directly to me. A law professor at Seton Hall, Gaia makes a strong argument that people are so addicted to tech at this point, we need some big, system level changes to social media platforms and other addictive technologies, instead of just blaming the individual and expecting them to fix these issues.
Gaia’s book is called Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies. It’s fascinating and I had a chance to talk with her about it for today’s podcast. At its heart, our conversation is really about how and whether we can maintain control over our thoughts and actions, even when some powerful forces are pushing in the other direction.
Listen on Apple | Listen on Spotify | Listen on Stitcher | Listen on Amazon | Listen on Google
We discuss the idea that, in certain situations, maybe it's not reasonable to expect that we’ll be able to enjoy personal freedom and autonomy. We also talk about how to be a good parent when it sometimes seems like our kids prefer to be raised by their iPads; so-called educational video games that actually don’t have anything to do with education; the root causes of tech addictions for people of all ages; and what kinds of changes we should be supporting.
Gaia is Seton’s Hall’s Technology, Privacy and Policy Professor of Law, as well as Co-Director of the Institute for Privacy Protection, and Co-Director of the Gibbons Institute of Law Science and Technology. She’s the founding director of the Institute for Privacy Protection. She created and spearheaded the Institute’s nationally recognized Outreach Program, which educated parents and students about technology overuse and privacy.
Professor Bernstein's scholarship has been published in leading law reviews including the law reviews of Vanderbilt, Boston College, Boston University, and U.C. Davis. Her work has been selected to the Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum and received extensive media coverage. Gaia joined Seton Hall's faculty in 2004. Before that, she was a fellow at the Engelberg Center of Innovation Law & Policy and at the Information Law Institute of the New York University School of Law. She holds a J.S.D. from the New York University School of Law, an LL.M. from Harvard Law School, and a J.D. from Boston University.
Gaia’s work on this topic is groundbreaking I hope you’ll listen to the conversation and then consider pre-ordering her new book. It comes out on March 28.
