{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018867924528301886, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005332239540607055, 'mean_word_length': 5.812849162011173, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of the pharmaceutical industry in postgraduate medical education.

Professor Rawlins' letter (1977) raised some important issues. It is unfortunate that he combined his criticism with an attack on the pharmaceutical industry for its marketing practices, since the Medico-Pharmaceutical Forum is a body formed from at least thirteen other organisations, besides the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The remainder are the Royal Colleges (9) and other Medical Societies, Associations or Faculties. Professor Rawlins might better have restricted himself to making constructive suggestions with regard to the postgraduate teaching of applied clinical pharmacology. At the recent Anglo-Scandinavian Symposium, 'Clinical Pharmacology and Patient Care' (Newcastle 12th/13th July 1977), Professor Rawlins was cochairman of the organising committee. He stated there that academic units of clinical pharmacology, drug control agencies and the pharmaceutical industry are providing considerable information concerning the actions, uses and side effects of medicines. Aquisition of this information does not necessarily equate with education. Professor Rawlins disagrees with the Working Party's statement that most of the knowledge concerning medicines is generated by the pharmaceutical industry. Many, however, believe this to be essentially true. The concensus of opinion at the Symposium was that there is still considerable lack of effect of the information services on medical therapeutic practices. Clinical pharmacologists are too few and NHS physicians too busy to provide unsupported meaningful education programmes. It is not in the best interests of the pharmaceutical industry to take further action in isolation, although I would like to see the implementation of Professor Rawlins' suggestion that the 'talented and knowledgable scientists' in the pharmaceutical industry participate in postgraduate medical education programmes. I would extend this proposal to suggest that the clinical scientists in the industry could also contribute extensively to postgraduate medical education. They must be invited to participate by those responsible for mounting education programmes. No-one, however, should confuse this activity with the promotional practices of the pharmaceutical industry and its information services, both of which also serve and meet the particular needs of the prescribing medical population.