The PhRMA database is more than just a place to publish the studies — it is an agreement by member companies to post results there (http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/primers/Clinical_Study_Results_Database.pdf). While the PhRMA database is technically voluntary, the companies that I’m familiar with treat posting as mandatory and take it quite seriously.

There will be those in the industry opposed to a mandatory database for any number of reasons, but there are legitimate reasons for opposing certain aspects (e.g., investigational compounds, provisions that posting will not endanger publication in journals, etc.). I have not read the bill, but I know that these were issues with the PhRMA database. That said, I’m sure there are those who have less-than-honorable reasons for not wanting the database, and they are the ones who perpetuate the industry’s subversive reputation.

Let’s not forget that there are plenty of pharma employees who publicly agree as well.

Understood. And so we’ve added a line indicating that pharma employees may privately agree and voted that way. Thanks to you and Lori for underscoring this point.

ed at Pharmalot

As I said previously, having only read the blurbs about the proposed FDA database (and not the text of the bill), I fail to see what the FDA database adds to what already exists.

As for the snooping aspect, I think that only really applies to investigational prodcuts, and I think drug companies have every right to keep that data confidential until the drug is approved/marketed. Even for investigational compounds, serious safety issues have to/will be reported — early phase trials are stopped all the time for safety reasons, sometimes with substantial coverage.