Talk:The Constant Gardener (film)

Too much PR for Rx companies?

I suppose under a heading of "Criticism" and "Controversy," this could be a relative complaint, but I wonder if the chain-listing of three different "pro-Third-World" programs near the end are necessary.

At the same time, I don't feel like slighting any one particular company that could be considered a "target" of the film/book ... maybe I need a closer reading of the balance rules, but it seems like a gray area. I may end up adding to this article later, perhaps to clarify the book's own "criticism" of the pharm industry to balance out the "criticism" of the work.

I respect your concern. Personally I think it is well balanced. There are 3 diverse examples of Rx companies supporting causes in Africa (where the story takes place) balanced against one example of abuse in Africa. I can't think of another documented abuse that can be easily cited for encyclopedic perspective. The debate that shaped this bit of text raged back and forth between rabidly anti-industry types and anti-film pro industry people. I think the content that popped out is a fairly well balanced piece that captures the controversy nicely without taking sides. Hard to find a balanced argument like it elsewhere on the web, a tribute to wikipedia in that sense. Sandwich Eater 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to Sonia Shah's article in The Nation to provide more balance, as she is a fairly vocal critic of the industry. I still note that she does not provide a very concrete example of misdoings in the article, just "In one inquiry, out of thirty-three subjects enrolled in an experiment trial in Thailand, all of whom had signed forms stating their informed consent, thirty were found to be dangerously misinformed. The experimental HIV vaccine they were about to receive had no known protective value, but, according to the subjects, it would, in fact, protect them from the deadly virus. " So, as usual, you have some case, in thailand, used as a horrific example but with no reference as to which company or which vaccine. Maybe you have to buy her book to get the factual references in hand. I suspect that she leaves out details to avoid liability, because the facts have some ambiguity, because there are two sides to the story, and shades of gray. No investigative jouranlist would leave the wrongdoers un-named if the facts were clear. This is preceisely what the critics point out could be better about the movie. It is too stark, clean cut, and that makes it unrealistic and arguably boring. Sandwich Eater 17:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted part of "criticism" section.

I don't think the opinions of "Johnny Web and Tuna" constitute a reliable source of criticism. Also removed some thoroughly unsourced material. The Nation and the Washington Post I can buy as reliable sources of criticism and information re. the subject of the movie, but unsourced material and... uh... the word of somebody who calls himself "Tuna" isn't exactly rock-solid reliable. --MattShepherd 01:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, just as sourceable as Sonia Shah. You made the criticism section pretty biased towards anti-pharma POV. It should be balanced. Also, the pharma philanthropic efforts in the developing world are easily sourced.Sandwich Eater 02:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No... Soniah Shah was published in a reputable print source. If you're interested in finding legitimate, printed, criticism of the movie, please by all means include it. But the blog entry of somebody called "Tuna" doesn't carry the same weight as The Nation. I'm sorry if you disagree. I'm sure there are valid criticisms of the film along the lines you're mentioning, but your personal belief that pharamaceutical companies are charitably inclined towards Africa isn't (a) direct criticism of the film itself, which is what the "criticism" section of a film article should include, or (b) verifiable, at least except in the words of "Johnny Web and Tuna"... see above for "reputable source" argument. --MattShepherd 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, after re-reading, the section should be scrapped. "Johnny Web and Tuna" (is that you, Sandwich Eater? See the problems you run into with non-notable anonymous Web-based "reviewers"? I have no way of knowing if "Sandwich Eater" or "Pfizer Employee 1011" or "Charlie Manson" are the reviewers, here) are hardly reliable, and the rest of the section is tangential talk about pharma and the Third World, but doesn't actually criticise the movie, which one would think a criticism section in a movie article should do. --MattShepherd 17:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not the critic and the criticism is of the *plot* as being unrealistic and laughable. You have confirmed tht the source is verifiable. I can look for additional sources but the verifiable fact remains that a lot of people have written about the unrealistic nature of the plot. Sandwich Eater 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From RFC

Hi all, just happened to see this listed at RFC. I've actually seen neither the movie nor the book so maybe coming at this with a fresh pair of eyes will be helpful. I take it from the history that the following paragraph is what's at issue:

Critics contend that both the movie and book failed to use the opportunity to level realistic and needed criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the plight of Africa. Instead, they argue, both mediums created an unrealistic, naive and almost laughable plot typical of many in the paranoid thriller genre but less entertaining or believable than the best of them 1. Equally adamant, the films supporters point out tragic corruption such as that depicted in a Washington Post article from December 2000 2, wherein a clinical trial conducted by Pfizer in Nigeria in 1996 allegedly used children to test Trovan, which had been proven efficacious in adults but not in children. In turn, critics of the movie point out that a company still has no profit motive in purposely developing a dangerous drug, particularly in light of the lawsuits that would result in the West. Other critics point to pro-Third World measures that pharmaceutical companies have enacted, such as "Merck's Gift," wherein billions of free drugs were donated to cure River Blindness in Africa 3, or Pfizer's gift of free/discounted fluconazole and other drugs in AIDS-ravaged South Africa 4, or GSK's development of a treatment for chloroquine-resistant malaria, despite the lack of profit potential 5. Sonia Shah, a very vocal critic of the drug industry and an investigative reporter describes a more realistic portrait of the ethical dilemmas facing the industry and the developing world, as published in The Nation. 6

Here are my thoughts. In general the language is overly hyperbolic, contains scare words, opinion words and weasel words. Additionally, many of the sources do not support the points that are being made. The first link goes to a blog, which aren't considered reliable sources as a general rule. The Washington Post article mentions nothing about the Constant Gardener and so I'm not sure how it's useful to mention in this article (perhaps in Pfizer or Trovafloxacin). It seems to me to be much more verbiage critical of this drug than critical of the movie/book itself (for which there are no sources provided). It references vague "critics" but does not adequately cite any such critics. I'm not saying there can't be criticism included in the article, naturally there can be. But it has to be presented properly. As it stands this text doesn't meet WP's editorial standards. — ripley/talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've pruned it down significantly (as well as at the related article), to the main assertion and a request for a citation. I'll be happy to try to help flesh this out properly. — ripley/talk 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ripley - I appreciate the neutral POV since you haven't seen the material but the Trovan issue is relevant becuase it is an example supporting the realism of the plot and the other examples show the lack of realism of the plot. I also added a reference to a Boston Globe article that wasn't as pointed but was similar in tone to bolster the blog. The obvious annoyance with many people watching the movie or reading the book is the lack of realism. Of course that is a POV but it was argued back and forth with a balanced point/counter-point and is in a separate section for criticism. Sandwich Eater 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started building a new criticism section. The current one is inadequate for all the reasons I've outlined. I'm glad to work with you to build in aspects of other criticisms related to this drug, but please don't simply revert back to the old, flawed version. Edit warring won't get us to a better product. Can you point me to somewhere where the film is criticized for not speaking about this drug? — ripley/talk 17:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You've already verified that the criticism is verifiable and the original critique grew out of the input of several wikipedians. I don't think it right to delete everything and start over. The edits went like this:

Some critics feel the movie and book have an unrealistic plot- references

--->It is too realistic blah blah blah, eventual addition of Trovan incident as a verifiable incidence

OK, but the critics would still content it is factually innacurate and that was just one corrupt MD in Nigeria here are 3 massively expensive things the industry has done, reference, reference, reference

So the whole thing grew out of a balanced discussion with a point/counter-point. And it doesn't make sense to delete these verifiable facts. Sandwich Eater 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are certain criticisms that are verifiable. The criticism that the movie didn't tackle the issues surrounding this specific drug has so far not been proven. That's what I'm asking of you. If you want to say that people were critical of this movie because it didn't address this drug, then you need to provide a source for it. Your preferred language is so flawed that there's nothing else for it but to start over. Please provide a source for what you're seeking to add, per Wikipedia's policies. I haven't deleted anything that's supported by a source that's relevant to this article. — ripley/talk 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - I moved this information to a new section entitled "Background of the Criticism" so that an uninformed reader might see both why some people ardently support the film's alleged realism and why others do not. The Trovan issue supports the *film* not the critics. It is there to provide more balance for the folks who thought inclusion of all the criticism of the plot was too POV. There are a lot of people out there who believe the conspiracy theories about the pharmaceutical industry hook line and sinker, and they are adamant that this movie is realistic. I do not share their POV, I only include Trovan for the sake of neutrality.Sandwich Eater 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)