webcams

online chat

adult web chat

sex video

live jasmine

sex web camera

sex on web cam

webcam

chat girls

sex chating

Business - Written by on Monday, October 15, 2007 9:53 - 1 Comment

Paul Artiuch
Pfizer and Sermo: potential for bias in social networks

Sermo, a social network for physicians, has announced a partnership with U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to give its members access to “up-to-date information on Pfizer’s products.”  While the terms of the deal, namely any compensation that Sermo would get for access to their community, were not disclosed, the social network needs to be careful that their actual and perceived objectivity stays intact.

Sermo is the largest online community of physicians with more than 30 000 members. Membership growth since its founding in September 2006 has reached about 2 000 per week.  The network allows medical professionals to share and discuss their observations, treatment options and new developments.  The community has been useful in spotting outbreaks as well as treatment side effects.  Hence Sermo’s business model has been based on selling this data to investors.  This model, which unlike most social networks, is not based on advertising provided an unbiased venue for busy doctors who are constantly bombarded with marketing from multiple pharmaceutical companies.  

The introduction of Pfizer into the community puts Sermo’s autonomy at risk.  If Pfizer’s input is not fully transparent and carefully managed the community could loose trust in the system.  Providing physicians with access to pertinent medical data in an efficient way could have huge benefits in terms of detection and treatment.  However, limiting that information to only one source could have grave consequences.  Sermo’s best option is to open up their platform to managed access by every pharmaceutical company.



1 Comment

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Frank
Oct 17, 2007 9:50

Sermo’s business model has always been troubling to me – to allow investors and drug researchers to eavesdrop into doctors’ conversations to get insights into clinical outcomes for monetization purposes? I’m not one to begrudge anyone making a dollar, but an anecdote or 2 is never a good substitute for good research.
More to the point, it seems to be a vehicle for promoting more off-label uses of medications, and exposing patients to therapies that have not been adequately tested. Pharma wouldn’t mind, because it benefits when their drugs are used more often. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for patients.
Parenthetically, I heard a few docs last night say they have checked out Sermo and were very underwhelmed by the nonsense and quackery they saw. If this is a common perception, Sermo will not last for long.
I also wonder why the AMA jumped into this when they have one of the best medical journals in the world to disseminate great science.
Social media tools are great, but not at the expense of fostering good science.

Coming soon in paperback! Help rename the paperback version of Macrowikinomics and win a one-hour webinar for you and your colleagues with Don Tapscott. Ends 5:00pm ET, August 31. Learn more.

Business - Oct 5, 2010 12:00 - 0 Comments

DRM and us

More In Business


Entertainment - Aug 3, 2010 13:14 - 2 Comments

Want to see the future? Look to the games

More In Entertainment


Society - Aug 6, 2010 8:19 - 4 Comments

The Empire strikes a light

More In Society