Yale students and professors returning from winter break in January 2022 were greeted with a curious headline in the Yale Daily News: Pfizer had awarded (1) several Yale researchers a $1.7 million grant to encourage the continued study of mRNA attributes and functions. In October of that year, the university required (2) students to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot only offered by companies that used mRNA technology. The following month, small trucks rolled into the center of campus and set up clinics to administer (3) vaccines to students on their way to class.
The partnership between Yale and pharmaceutical companies is nothing new. They date back to 2002 when Pfizer began (4) an official collaboration with Yale as it was building a clinical research unit in New Haven. Today, one regularly finds articles from the university’s researchers and professors touting (5) Pfizer as a worthy investment, announcing (6) the arrival of new mRNA vaccine batches, and combatting (7) what one article calls “misinformation.” Saad Omer, former director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, is quoted in this piece discussing ways to convince Americans to get vaccinated. He sits (8) on the board of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.
Yale is an illustrative example of a much broader trend. Big Pharma is sending increasing funding to academia, which is then incentivized to produce research results that favor its sponsors. This raises suspicions that there are unethical ties between pharmaceutical companies and universities.
Such ties extend beyond just academia. Big Pharma also enlists the help of government agencies and the healthcare system. The president’s 2024 Fiscal Year budget allocated (9) $48.6 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), approximately 80 percent of which is dedicated to “300,000 research personnel at over 2,800 universities, medical schools, research facilities, small businesses, and hospitals.” NIH government scientists encourage healthcare providers and universities to back pharmaceutical products to make a profit. For example, they collected (10) royalties from COVID-19 drug patents that amounted to $710 million from late 2021 through 2023. Academic institutions also occasionally partner with Big Pharma to expand their research frontiers, such as when Eli Lilly and Company contributed (11) $15 million to the construction of the Indiana Biosciences Research Institute.
Another area worth examining is the eye-raising influence that pharmaceutical companies have on medical school budget allocations.
Statistics for recent years have become increasingly difficult to find, but earlier studies indicate a broader trend that likely still persists. In 2004, for instance, corporate grants for Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania’s medical schools accounted (12) for around 9 percent of their total grants. For other institutions like University of Texas Southwest and Penn State, that proportion rose to approximately 15 percent. In 2017, Big Pharma covered (13) 28 percent of the costs of doctors’ continuing medical education (CME) and extended (14) large payments to medical school deans.
Source: “Corporate Grants to Selected Medical Schools, 2004” in Joe Neel, “Medical Schools and Drug Firm Dollars,” NPR, June 9, 2005, https://www.npr.org/2005/06/09/4696316/medical-schools-and-drug-firm-dollars
As Ben Goldacre explained in his book Bad Pharma, pharmaceutical companies have an outsized influence in doctors’ prescribing patterns. These specialists often attend workshops and receive instructional materials directly sponsored by Big Pharma. Consequently, pharmaceutical promotions and outreach to the medical industry have led to an uptick in the number of prescription drugs prescribed.
A 2018 University of Sydney study examined 3,000 educational events with high attendance (at least 100,000 people) organized by healthcare professionals from October 2011 to September 2015. Their conclusion (15) was deeply concerning: “Just two companies sponsored over 70 percent of the depression events we identified, another two companies sponsored over 80 percent of overactive bladder events, and two companies sponsored nearly 50 percent of osteoporosis events.” The same trend is present in the United States, evidenced by a January 2025 settlement in which Pfizer paid $59.7 million to resolve claims that it provided doctors with speaker honoraria and expensive meals to promote a migraine drug.
The formation of academic curricula is something that the administrative leadership of medical schools can influence, but even these are not spared from Big Pharma’s heavy hand. A 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association report revealed (16) that practically every major U.S.-based pharmaceutical company has a board member occupying a leadership role in an American medical center. They are compensated over $300,000 from the company they represent for taking these positions.
As explained by Marcia Angell, M.D., the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, academic centers are increasingly undertaking (17) applied research rather than holistic analyses of the causes and prevention of disease. When this research addresses the products that pharmaceutical companies develop, no amount of peer review ensures their safety. Indeed, reviewers cannot access the data that Big Pharma conceals (18) under the guise of “corporate property.” They rely on data summaries furnished by these companies.
This is exactly what happened during COVID-19. Pfizer did not (19) provide all of its underlying clinical trial data before rolling out its mRNA vaccine and booster shots, which became mandatory for most Americans seeking to return to the workforce or attend college. Although several publications like The New England Journal of Medicine assured (20) readers that they had analyzed the trial data, the vaccine's anonymized individual participant data has been continuously delayed (21). Accordingly, a federal judge ordered (22) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2024 to disclose additional information about its decision to authorize the vaccine.
If one scrutinizes the journey of COVID-19 vaccines, several warning signs quickly become obvious. In November 2021, a peer-reviewed medical journal, The BMJ, published troubling allegations from the regional director of a subcontractor assisting Pfizer in Phase III of its clinical trials. The whistleblower, who was fired from her job as soon as she notified the FDA of malpractice, claimed (23) that data was falsified, patients were unblinded (which means that they were informed prematurely of whether they were in the treatment or placebo group), the vaccinators they employed were insufficiently trained, and adverse effects related to the vaccine were initially ignored.
One can also think back to the widespread cover-up that occurred when some patients—especially adolescent men—began experiencing (24) myocarditis after receiving an mRNA vaccine. News outlets and medical centers insist (25) that the condition is extremely rare and reassure (26) patients that the risks of COVID-19 outweigh those of not getting updated vaccinations.
Universities that joined the fray are in danger of losing public trust as they reassess products that eventually turned out to have serious secondary effects. For instance, in February, Yale researchers uncovered (27) chronic immunological reactions to COVID-19 vaccines previously dismissed in the mainstream media as exceptional cases. Known as post-vaccination syndrome (PVS), the condition is associated (28) with nausea, insomnia, exercise intolerance, fatigue, and brain fog. Akiko Iwasaki, the co-senior author of the study now calling for increased transparency for COVID-19 vaccines, was quoted (29) saying that “a third dose is a good idea” and that if there are enough, “I think the general public will benefit.”
PVS is not something that can be reversed. More than 1 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccines—the vast majority mRNA, which, as discussed above, triggered adverse effects for some patients—without understanding the potential long-term health risks they were accepting. The great irony is that numerous international conventions forbid (30) the administration of experimental medical products. COVID-19 vaccines were excluded (31) from this category thanks to Big Pharma’s strategic omission of data and cooperation with mainstream media.
Unfortunately, many may question the motivation behind Big Pharma's tactics when looking at their revenue practices. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the 20 largest pharmaceutical companies had a 19% profit margin, exceeding that of oil and gas companies, which are usually at the top of the list. It is estimated that pharmaceutical company shareholders earned $1 million every five minutes from 2020 to 2022. These top 20 companies spent (32) 90% of their research and development on financial compensation for their executives, share buybacks, and dividends.
They also engaged in questionable practices that, to the outside observer, could seem designed to stifle competition. For instance, in December 2020, BioNTech, which backed Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, contacted (33) Twitter to demand that it hide tweets calling for laws allowing manufacturers in the Global South to copy their COVID-19 vaccines.
Pharmaceutical companies have been found to be ghostwriting (34) articles in medical literature that are then attributed to researchers collaborating with these companies. As revealed (35) by a June 2010 report from the office of Senator Charles Grassley, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., acquired by Pfizer in 2009, hired medical communications firms and an educational company to draft review articles discussing how hormone therapy can lead to increased risk of breast cancer. The secretive nature of ghostwriting makes it difficult to pinpoint its frequency and whether it was used during COVID-19, but the indirect financial influence that Big Pharma has on universities should make readers double-check recommendations in academic research papers.
The questionable practices we have discussed thus far extend beyond just COVID-19. In February 2024, the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee published (36) a report detailing how Johnson&Johnson, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb engage in unfair pricing to dominate the market and facilitate patient dependence on their products (they earned $112 billion collectively in 2022). Another technique that pharmaceutical companies occasionally use is to make slight modifications (37) to a drug they have already manufactured and then file new patents to extend their monopoly. These so-called “combination drugs” then sell at much higher prices. Big Pharma also engages in a practice called “pay-for-delay,” in which larger companies pay off (38) their competitors to have them delay the release of a cheaper alternative in the market to maintain their market dominance.
At least $250 million was spent (39) on campaigns to convince Americans to get inoculated with the COVID-19 vaccine, which discouraged patients from choosing less expensive, time-tested drugs. Western media berated French physician Didier Raoult for proposing at the start of the pandemic that hydroxychloroquine was more efficient than mRNA vaccines, leading his study on the topic to be retracted (40). Ivermectin, another drug that has become much cheaper due to the expiration (41) of its patent—and which showed promise (42) in terms of reducing the duration of COVID-19 without the side effects caused by the vaccines—was pushed aside (43) to present vaccines as the only solution to the disease.
Pharmaceutical money in academia can cause conflicts of interest and ethical pitfalls. Without serious oversight into the links tying together academic research money and Big Pharma’s priorities, universities will lose credibility from a public that becomes unsure whether their recommendations are beholden to outside funding. Medical centers should ensure that Big Pharma does not dictate their curricula and that there is substantive scientific discourse as to whether alternative treatments are viable.
If Americans want to escape a healthcare system in which they constantly have to resort to cures presented by Big Pharma rather than taking a holistic approach to their well-being, they should learn about the ways that pharmaceutical influence is affecting academic institutions. To distance themselves from this influence, universities can embrace teaching models focusing on the root causes of various illnesses and take a more comprehensive approach to healing. This could entail bringing nutritional training back to medical schools to ensure that the general public is less at risk of contracting the illnesses that Big Pharma seeks to treat through its products. Impactful change can thus start at the individual and university levels.
Axel de Vernou is a graduating senior at Yale University majoring in Global Affairs and History with a Russian Certificate. You can find him on LinkedIn here.
FAQ:
Q: Are universities allowed to partner with pharmaceutical companies on their research?
A: Yes, and these partnerships can lead to fruitful innovation. However, they should be paired with serious oversight to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest.
Q: What techniques does Big Pharma use to exert pressure on academic institutions?
A: Its representatives sit on the board of these institutions, it provides grants for research on its own products, and it trains emerging scientists in academic medical centers to use its products rather than resorting to holistic treatments.
Q: How do pharmaceutical companies ensure that their own products are prescribed?
A: They engage in business tactics, including “pay-for-delay” and the merging of two separate drugs into “combination drugs” to artificially raise prices and undermine competitors.
Q: Did universities back the Covid-19 vaccine due to pressure from Big Pharma?
A: It is not possible to provide a breakdown of every university and the reason for which the administration encouraged or required Covid-19 vaccination. The preliminary studies that universities pointed to in order to explain the reason for which vaccines were safe to mandate, however, may not have explored all the risks, such as myocarditis.
Q: What are ways in which the general public can help curtail Big Pharama’s influence on academic institutions?
A: It can become more informed of the special interests that have historically tied together the two and more closely read into the side effects of pharmaceutical solutions presented by universities, no matter how prestigious they are. Americans can pursue holistic, nutritional treatment options before falling back on options manufactured by Big Pharma.
