Curbing Misconduct in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Insights from Behavioral Ethics and the Behavioral Approach to Law
Curbing Misconduct in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Insights from Behavioral Ethics and the Behavioral Approach to Law
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jlme.12071
复制
发表时间：
2013-09-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Schuler, Troy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feldman, Yuval;Gauthier, Rebecca;Schuler, Troy
我们想要借鉴的两个心理学见解是，人们对法律的反应比理性选择模型假设的更复杂，好人有时会做坏事。在这一起点上，本文从行为的角度提供了一些因素，寻求减少制药行业的不当行为的政策制定者应该考虑的一些因素。有效的监管和执行需要解决以下问题：监管的目标行为者、研究人员或高管是谁？这些规定是针对研究活动还是针对营销活动？这种不当行为是明确的理性选择的产物，还是行为者不知道的隐性过程的产物？使用相同的方法处理所有类型的不当行为是否合理？某些不当行为，特别是研究人员的不当行为，是由于自动、直觉和无意识的决定造成的，需要通过不同于因受控、刻意决定而用于解决不当行为的方法来解决。因此，本文建议根据具体情况使用不同种类的管制。它建议建立更有针对性的执行机制，对制药研究人员独特的工作动机以及他们对自己的不当行为的意识或缺乏意识保持敏感。
Two insights of psychology on which we would like to draw are that people react to law in more complex ways than rational-choice models assume and that good people sometimes do bad things. With that starting point, this article provides a behavioral perspective on some of the factors that policymakers seeking to reduce the level of misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry should consider. Effective regulation and enforcement need to address the following questions: Who are the regulation's targeted actors researchers or executives? Are the regulations directed toward research or marketing activities? Is the misconduct a product of explicit rational choice or implicit processes of which the actor is unaware? Is it reasonable to address all types of misconduct using the same approach? Certain misconduct particularly by researchers is due to automatic, intuitive, and unconscious decisions and needs to be addressed through different means than those used to address misconduct due to controlled, deliberate decisions. This article therefore recommends using different sorts of regulation depending on the context. It suggests more tailored enforcement mechanisms that will be sensitive to the pharmaceutical researchers' unique work motivations and to their awareness or lack of awareness of their own misconduct.