Pharma Gossip blogger Jack Friday has posted controversial questions and issues regarding what he considers to be the unethical conduct of pharma on a wide range of pharma company websites using the relatively new Google Sidewiki application. Since Sidewiki cannot be moderated, this debate is out in the open. However, since UK (and European) regulations limit pharma from talking to patients online about treatments, there is a perceived risk that directly responding to comments could lead to a breach of the ABPI Code of Conduct, let alone potential legal ramifications.

Despite this, AstraZeneca has come up with a short-term answer well worth following. Attached to astrazeneca.com is a Sidewiki statement from the company large enough to fill the entire first page, which means critical comments do not appear until the second page (so will be largely unread). This Sidewiki statement says that AstraZeneca does not monitor comments and will not reply to them, and directs web visitors to contact the company through other means.

This is a good initial step which other companies would be wise to adopt, before working up more detailed policies. The big issues raised by Sidewiki comments should be addressed much in the same way an issue raised in traditional media would. Sidewiki is still relatively unused, but judging by Google’s success rate with similar applications, is likely to become more and more popular. Before long, an issue so large could rear its ugly head that a pharma company will simply have to respond. Being prepared is by far the better option.

Andrew argues yes, since nothing can be done by the owners of the website in question to mediate the comment that has been left other than respond to it, other than actually engage in a conversation with those who are commenting. Obviously, regulations rule this out, so we will have to wait for new ABPI guidelines on this before anything can be done. This leaves pharma as sitting ducks. Technically, they cannot even listen to the conversation on sidewiki under current regulations so there is no way of even using the information as general feedback to act on. We’re now in a position where the internet is moving so quickly this needs to be addressed by the rulemakers – and quite urgently too otherwise the ideal of a ‘healthy conversation’ may never become a reality.