PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. And Another and Another…Advertisement by Robert F. Ryan, M.S., Ph.D.  Another one? Oh boy, I’ll skip over it! (Just like you considered skipping this article because you saw “that word.”) Are these some of the first thoughts that cross your mind when reading through a magazine?Then I can guess you were probably looking at another advertisement. Advertisements are considered the bane of civilization to many of us, including scientists and physicians. They are just another wasted page to some, yet a thrill to still others. What is an ad and do we really need them? According to some people I asked, especially after many years in science or medicine, they have become a simple thing to look at, assess (most likely skip over) and move on. This isn’t to say that they don’t often provide new information worthy of following up. Perhaps offering even some tantalizing tidbit that the scientist might not have known about for quite some time. Nonetheless, advertisements can still be annoying. Where do we see science and medicine ads? Almost everywhere. The insertion of several pages of advertisements at the beginning of a journal committed to high-brow science has become quite commonplace. Go back and check your latest issues of Science, Nature or BioTechniques. These ads help pay for part of the publishing costs. They also draw attention and interest in heretofore unknown items. On the other hand, some people just get irritated having to filter through them to find the table of contents. Even worse still, the table of contents may be intertwined with ads, and you may even miss it altogether while rapidly flipping past the ad pages to find it. It has been generally accepted by most of us that advertising is a necessary evil. But is it? About 50% (and sometimes more) of company profits go into advertising, yet only about 20% into R&D. No wonder there are so many ads out there! Even though ads can, and often are, “cluttering up space” in journals, periodicals and now websites, I might first ask are they actually evil? Ads can be overwhelming when they envelope articles. Most people interviewed for this article indicated that although they can be annoying and time-consuming to wade through, they aren’t necessarily evil. I however, would like to disagree, for the sake of argument and state that ads can be insidious. Company management, advertising staff, company personnel… can, in their desire to look good and sell their product and/or service, overstate reality and create small to out-and-out lies that are displayed in their ads. Hopefully most cases are corrected, caught, stopped, or redirected. Fortunately, in the case of drug ads, FDA’s DDMAC (Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications) “protect[s] the public health by assuring prescription drug information is truthful, balanced, and accurately communicated.” There are, of course, good ads out there. Maybe even some great ones, probably for more than one reason, but nonetheless worth seeing if you haven’t. Meeting programs typically provide conference information, but not this year for the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s program (ASCO). The inside first page and back of the book are full-page color ads. Surprise! No they aren’t selling the latest oncology drug, but rather display simple messages. The first ad features Bristol-Myers Squibb’s beautiful use of the famous, two outstretched hands, which underneath says “The Art of Oncology. To extend and enhance the lives of patients with cancer.” The back of the book shows a picture of the great Lance Armstrong talking about cancer research being “…the hope for the future.” The ads recommends, “If you have cancer, consider participating in a clinical trial.” A good and noble idea and it extends beyond the realm of oncology. Lastly, inside the May 26, 2003 issue of Fortune magazine is a sharp advertisement by the state of Tennessee, showcasing the advantage of “…how your business can take advantage of Tennessee” through tying together discoveries at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Theragenics Corp., which is advancing the ability to treat prostate cancer patients with TheraSeed®. Have you looked in one of your catalogs lately? One can even find ads within a company’s own catalog. These can be very useful since they simply state a new product they carry or service they provide. Take for example the Enzyme Systems Products catalog from a small, but growing company, now a recently-acquired unit of ICN Biochemicals. Found on the second page is a simple, nicely done advertisement indicating they provide apoptosis detection with “Living Cell Technology” through in situ recognition of active caspases in living cells. On page 65 they have a simple ICN ad indicating they perform custom synthesis if you need it – in the middle of various short protein peptide synthetic substrates they routinely sell. Just simple advertisements, yet they are quite effective. A bad ad you say. Show me one? How about I start by asking you how fast can you complete a single mini-prep and produce good sequencing quality plasmid DNA? Well, as for me, it’s only a few minutes (providing I don’t spill the sample on the benchtop paper…which still be salvaged anyway). I’m talking about page 481 of the March 2003 issue of BioTechniques. I love Brinkmann and Eppendorf. They make the best “eppendorf” tubes in the business, but maybe I’m missing something. “Fast-Faster-FastPlasmid” Wow! It sounds amazing…but what improvement are they claiming beyond “...the true one-step lysis….” They say “1 prep in just 9 minutes….” I see, one-step lysis, but slower than before? I’m sure you and I can beat that by the standard two-step lysis, possibly in our sleep. So, I believe most scientists would ignore this ad. You’re welcome Brinkmann. Ah, what did the advertisement gurus miss? Basic Math. If you do 50 mini-preps, only pipet one solution, only change tubes one time, only have to write the names on the tubes two times, NOW WE’RE TALKING AN ADVANCE! Decreased tube cost, handling AND prep time when doing many DNA preps! One medical doctor I talked to indicated that it was not a good thing, and perhaps is a very bad thing, to inform the public through advertising of the capabilities of their new drug. Why is it bad, you ask? Her opinion was that it often drives patients to go to a doctor and not only ask to be assessed, but to come in and suggest or even demand to be treated with Drug X since they saw an ad and it “cures” what they have. Unfortunately they don’t come in and say “I saw an ad for Drug X, would it help me?” “Patients should visit their doctor and expect them to find out what is wrong and treat them with the best available therapy. If they don’t feel comfortable [with the treatment], they should get a second opinion.” Thus, it may be better that the general public probably isn’t told too much about a particular drug, which hopefully prevents patients from becoming doctors based on advertisement lingo in random drug ads seen in a magazine or on TV. On the other hand, the public, in its never-ending need for quick-health fixes have aided drug companies in publishing ads in mass media journals and putting them on TV. Take the May 2003 issue of Money . On pages 59-60, there is a two-page ad describing once-a-day Aricept® treatment for Alzheimer’s. There is even a “convenient” cardboard mailer to send in for more information. If the average person, quickly skimming through the magazine, reads the first few eye-catching points: “Fighting Back with Aricept®” and “…He put me on ARICEPT®. Now I’m doing better.” They may not catch the points both before and after, "I knew I had to see my doctor…” and “Ask your doctor if ARICEPT®…” Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that her or she turns the page to read the FDA-required drug labeling found in fine print describing drug-drug interactions, adverse events, carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, fertility impairment, or other cautionary tales (if any) about the rigorous FDA-required safety and efficacy studies and therefore drug companies would suggest they have every right to “inform the public.” But, does the public really know enough to digest and appreciate the immense amount of data and information gathered and published (in fine print) about the drug, not to mention who this or any other drug is good for? Probably not, Ssssoooo, maybe all of us should just keep going for our annual checkup. Then we should complain about everything and anything (almost) bothering us (we don’t want to end up being treated with Valium, ha, ha, ha). We should expect our physician either knows or will send us to someone who does know what is ailing us. Anything ailing you recently? Did you know you can pick up one of the latest issues of TIME (May 19, 2003) and in the Special Advertising Section you can read a few good short articles about “Healthy Aging.” These include pain management, the changing face of depression, and the origins of osteoarthritis. I found it interesting that these articles are in an advertising section. All three are written by different respected Center Directors around the US and are very informative. Each directly suggested being cared for by your doctor. What are the ads then? Intertwined are an ad about Merck’s “powerful” arthritis-relief Vioxx® and how to treat your lingering heartburn by getting a 7 day supply of Nexium® – FREE, courtesy of AstraZeneca. Well, okay, the AstraZeneca ad says you do have to follow 2 simple steps: 1) go see your doctor and 2) if you get a prescription, go see your pharmacist and you’ve made it! Good news for some and I hope it helps! One interesting difference about these ads: the Vioxx® ad felt like a standard I’m-great-come-buy-me ad whereas Nexium® clearly started with “Think just a little lingering heartburn is no big deal? Your Doctor may beg to differ.” And throughout the ad indicated “…ask your doctor…” and “Talk to your Doctor…” Sound advice…Nice job AstraZeneca. After we really think about it, we probably won’t complain too much about the ads. We’re used to them. Bombarded in everything we do, read, or watch. Anyway, they keep the price of the journal, magazine, TV access down, right…I think. Or do they just pay for executive salaries? Oh yeah, that’s right…they increase the amount we pay for the compound, drug, service… ### Dr. Ryan is a molecular biologist and geneticist with expertise in molecular biology, protein characterization and biochemistry. He completed his M.S. degree while studying Sickle Cell and other hemoglobinopathies at The Medical College of Georgia. Later, Dr. Ryan received his Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA where he characterized the DNA and RNA binding properties of the zinc finger proteins TFIIIA and p43. He completed his Post-Doctoral training at The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia and The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, studying mechanisms of transcriptional repression and the binding properties of the glucocorticoid receptor in vivo. He has published research articles in Experimental Cell Research, MCB, Nucleic Acids Research, PNAS, Sphere and The British Journal of Hematology. His primary interests are in teaching, writing, increasing translational science and initiating new cancer treatments while differentiating responding from non-responding patients. Dr. Ryan has been a member of The Science Advisory Board since October, 2001. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
