Not long ago I went to London looking forward to a constructive debate on health at an event organised by the Institute of Ideas and co-sponsored by my employer, Pfizer. I made the return journey feeling bruised and rubbing my temple to check for protruding red horns.

As a neurophysiologist and biomedical scientist in the pharmaceutical industry, one reason I attended the conference was to better understand why my industry’s public image is in decline. I wanted to know why the world-class scientists with whom I work — people who devote their lives to the discovery of new medicines — feel as valued as arms dealers.

Once each expert on the panel of academics, physicians and commentators had spoken, the audience got its turn. I expected criticism, but was surprised that no topic passed without someone rounding on pharmaceutical companies and accusing them of substandard science in pursuit of a quick buck.

This is not the industry I know. Every researcher and physician I have worked with has devoted much time and thought to the ethical issues that guide their profession. When our physicians set up a clinical trial, they ask themselves the questions you would ask: “Would I be happy for a member of my family to enrol in this study?” and “Would I take this medicine?” Clinical trials are managed ethically and tightly regulated. They also rely on the highest scientific standard devised — the double-blind, placebo- controlled trial. The statistical analysis of data is rigorous. So why do a growing number of people seem reluctant to rely on this data? Claims that pharmaceutical companies knew their drugs had serious side-effects but didn’t reveal this to the public may have contributed to this.

This isn’t my experience, but I can understand that people read these claims and then assume that the practice is commonplace. The underlying assumption is that companies knowingly launch medicines with questionable safety profiles. This is absurd.

Government regulators see detailed results of all the data from clinical-trial programmes and scrutinise them for many months. Once patients are being prescribed a medicine, companies and regulators continue to monitor how it works in a global population. But while data is invaluable it does not tell us everything. Large clinical studies in tens of thousands of patients provide regulators with reliable data overall about the efficacy and safety of compounds. They do not, and never will, address every if and but. This is the nature of science but it’s unappreciated by people in our increasingly scientifically illiterate society. We are also risk-averse but taking drugs is always a case of juggling risk and benefit.

Talking to people after the debate’s formalities, several told me that they had lost faith in medical science and in the event of serious illness would turn first to alternative therapies. But there is more evidence supporting conventional medicine’s effectiveness than exists for any alternative treatment.

Most of us are happy to judge people on their track record. If the pharmaceutical industry was judged thus, it would surely be held in high regard. Few diseases that killed large numbers at the turn of the 20th century are of great concern today.

I once heard the science editor of a national newspaper tell a researcher: “Don’t rely on journalists to explain complex science. My editor wants me to write articles that sell the paper.” Better science education would help people to understand scientific information independent of the media — and perhaps then we will realise that doubling a very small risk leaves you with a very small risk.

When I got home, there was still no sign of the horns. I had a headache though, and took an ibuprofen. As I expected, it helped.

Dr Eliot Forster is head of development at Pfizer’s Sandwich Laboratories.

Mark Henderson is away

Explore Health News

• Swine flu

Times Recommends

• Stand-ups laughing all the way to the bank
• How Britain’s wildlife fared during the year
• UK charity bids to save Borneo’s orang-utans