The Library
The ghost in the data : evidence gaps and the problem of fake drugs in global health research
Tools
Tools
Tools
Garnett, Emma and Hodges, Sarah (2020) The ghost in the data : evidence gaps and the problem of fake drugs in global health research. Global Public Health, 15 (8). 1103-1118 . doi:10.1080/17441692.2020.1744678 ISSN 1744-1692.
|
PDF
WRAP-ghost-data-evidence-gaps-problem-fake-drugs-global-health-research-Hodges-2020.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. Download (1373Kb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) |
PDF
WRAP-ghost-data-evidence-fake-drugs-research-Hodges-2019.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (570Kb) |
Official URL: http://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1744678
Abstract
For the past several decades, global health researchers and policy makers have raised the alarm about the growing threat of counterfeit and low-quality drugs (henceforth ‘fakes’). These high-profile and regularly repeated claims about fake drugs pepper scholarly publications, grey literature, and popular writing. Much of this writing shares two characteristics. First, it asserts that fake drugs constitute an urgent problem to global health because these drugs threaten lives. Second – and rather perplexingly, given the ubiquity of these claims and urgency with which they have been made – nearly all authors also report trouble with ‘gaps’ in the evidence on which their claims are based. In particular, authors report their surprise that the data is weaker and less conclusive than they had anticipated. Through a close reading of the strategies authors employ to overcome evidence gaps, we ask questions about the cultures of knowledge production in scholarly publishing, and in particular about how data and evidence are deployed in global health research. We argue that scholarly commitment to studying fakes despite the evidence – rather than because of it – functions to avoid difficult questions about the lack of access to pharmacological data and to support spending on anti-counterfeit policing and products.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BC Logic R Medicine > R Medicine (General) |
||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Arts > History | ||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Drugs, Placebos (Medicine), Evidence, World health | ||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Global Public Health | ||||||
| Publisher: | Routledge | ||||||
| ISSN: | 1744-1692 | ||||||
| Official Date: | 31 March 2020 | ||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||
| Volume: | 15 | ||||||
| Number: | 8 | ||||||
| Page Range: | 1103-1118 | ||||||
| DOI: | 10.1080/17441692.2020.1744678 | ||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Open Access (Creative Commons) | ||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 17 July 2019 | ||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 6 April 2020 | ||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
||||||
| Related URLs: |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
