Search results

Roughly 40% of the sizeable medical research and literature on recently approved drugs is "ghost managed" by the pharmaceutical industry and its agents. Research is performed and articles are written by companies and their agents, though apparently independent academics serve as authors on the publications. Similarly, the industry hires academic scientists, termed key opinion leaders, to serve as its speakers and to deliver its continuing medical education courses. In the ghost management of knowledge, and its dissemination through key opinion leaders, we see the pharmaceutical industry attempting to hide or disguise the interests behind its research and education.

At several points over his career, Pierre Bourdieu articulated a framework for a sociology of science, derived mostly from a priori reasoning about scientific actors in competition for capital. This article offers a brief overview of Bourdieu's framework, placing it in the context of dominant trends in Science and Technology Studies. Bourdieu provides an excellent justification for the project of the sociology of science, and some starting points for analysis. However, his framework suffers from his commitment to a vague evolutionary epistemology, and from his correlative and surprising neglect of science's habituses, with their particular practices, boundaries, and political economies. To be productive, Bourdieu's sociology of science would have to abandon its narrow rationalism and embrace the material complexity of the sciences.

In this article, we symmetrically explore the political underpinnings and connections of pharmaceutical drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We illustrate some different and shifting dynamics of expert-lay interplay, competing knowledge claims in politically charged environments, as well as actions and actors that can bring drugs to prominence. Focusing on three drugs, ivermectin, remdesivir, and Coronil, we offer three axes on which they can be apprehended within political logics: (a) ivermectin as a "populist drug" in the United States, (b) remdesivir as an "establishment drug" in the United States, and (c) Coronil as a "nationalist drug" in India. These three pharmaceuticals were politicized, and perhaps more surprising, politics became pharmaceuticalized. Trust in these treatments was intimately related to articulations of the threats posed by the pandemic and the best ways of addressing them, both manipulated politically by relatively powerful actors.