Readers of an article on clinical trials for a new melanoma drug might think that the NYT prohibits such discussion. The gist of the NYT article is that some people may end up dying because they were selected for the control group rather than the treatment group for an effective drug.
A more serious article would have explored the comment buried in the middle of the article:
"The surest way to get the F.D.A.’s endorsement for a broader market was a controlled trial. And with its competitors rushing to get similar drugs to market, the findings of such a trial might give Roche an advantage in marketing its version as the only one proven to prolong survival."
This is an incredible statement that largely negates the point of the article. Is the purpose of the clinical test to get Roche more profit or is to find out more information about the effectiveness of a drug? Readers do not know.
Suppose that all drug test results were fully public and the patents were placed in the public domain. Would the same issues still exist?
Readers of this article have no idea as to whether the clinical test in question is being done for purely competitive reasons or whether it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of a specific treatment. A serious piece would make this issue clear. Unfortunately, this piece seeks to exploit the tragedy of a young man's death for no obvious purpose whatsoever.
(Only one link allowed per comment)