Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
Sign In
News

Tamiflu and the Limits of Peer Review

By Paul Basken March 4, 2018
Nearly two decades ago, two studies hailed the drug Tamiflu as effectively fighting the flu in nearly three out of four cases. But recent studies have cast doubt on both the drug’s effectiveness and the peer-review system that cleared it.
Nearly two decades ago, two studies hailed the drug Tamiflu as effectively fighting the flu in nearly three out of four cases. But recent studies have cast doubt on both the drug’s effectiveness and the peer-review system that cleared it.David Goldman, AP Images

For those questioning whether the institution of peer review is really the ideal form of scientific quality control, the medication Tamiflu stands as a textbook example of its failure.

Back in 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewed data from two peer-reviewed trials and approved Tamiflu for reducing both the risk and severity of flu. The U.S. and other governments worldwide then spent billions of dollars stockpiling it.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

For those questioning whether the institution of peer review is really the ideal form of scientific quality control, the medication Tamiflu stands as a textbook example of its failure.

Back in 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewed data from two peer-reviewed trials and approved Tamiflu for reducing both the risk and severity of flu. The U.S. and other governments worldwide then spent billions of dollars stockpiling it.

Now, almost two decades later and during an especially brutal flu season, the wisdom of those decisions — and the ability of the peer-reviewed publishing process to serve as a yardstick of reliability — stand in considerable doubt.

The two initial Tamiflu studies back in 1999 had described the pill as protecting against the flu in 74 percent of cases, and cutting by nearly 50 hours the duration of the flu for those already suffering.

But a comprehensive academic analysis in 2014 — covering at least 83 clinical trials of Tamiflu’s effectiveness and net benefits, many never previously published — showed Tamiflu provided an average reduction in flu symptoms of just 20 hours; no reduction in the likelihood of pneumonia, hospital admission, or complications requiring an antibiotic; and serious side effects, including nausea and vomiting. Several other studies using data not disclosed back in 1999 reached similar conclusions.

Much of the $20 billion spent worldwide on Tamiflu therefore may have been thrown away, given the very selective data that were initially made public through the peer-review process, according to the authors of the 2014 analysis, published in the medical journal BMJ.

The Tamiflu case is “an excellent example” of the serious shortcomings of using published peer-reviewed articles as a measure of scientific reliability, says David Moher, an associate professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa.

Peer review shouldn’t be worshiped, but judged just as strictly as any other scientific tool, says Moher, who directs the Center for Journalology at the Ottawa Hospital. “If we were to replace the peer-review intervention with a clinical intervention, such as a drug, and the evidence indicated no effect despite the enormous investment in the intervention, there would be a public outcry,” he says.

The limited number of published trials on Tamiflu at the time of its 1999 approval had led some scientists to push the drug’s manufacturer, Roche, to release all its trial data on the drug. After several years, Roche complied. The drug’s approval and sales represent a “multisystem failure,” BMJ editors said in an editorial accompanying the 2014 analysis.

Roche still insists on Tamiflu’s value. A company spokesman, Bob Purcell, said in a statement to The Chronicle that Tamiflu’s regulatory approvals “were based on appropriate review of Tamiflu data.” Yet Purcell also said Roche had realized the need to be more transparent. “We have evolved our practices regarding data sharing over time,” he said in the statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

But others say the waste uncovered in the Tamiflu saga reflects widespread problems that continue to plague academic publishing. Moher is the lead author of a September 2017 article in Nature that analyzed nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 low-quality journals, covering data from studies involving more than two million people and 8,000 animals. More than 90 percent of the studies in the sample failed to describe even basic processes, such as their method for creating randomized test groupings.

The waste in time and money attributable to poor peer review, Moher says, is likely to be in “the billions of hours and dollars.”

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the March 9, 2018, issue.
Read other items in The 2018 Trends Report.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Illustration of a magnifying glass highlighting the phrase "including the requirements set forth in Presidential Executive Order 14168 titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government."
Policy 'Whiplash'
Research Grants Increasingly Require Compliance With Trump’s Orders. Here’s How Colleges Are Responding.
Photo illustration showing internal email text snippets over a photo of a University of Iowa campus quad
Red-state reticence
Facing Research Cuts, Officials at U. of Iowa Spoke of a ‘Limited Ability to Publicly Fight This’
Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues

From The Review

Football game between UCLA and Colorado University, at Folsom Field in Boulder, Colo., Sept. 24, 2022.
The Review | Opinion
My University Values Football More Than Education
By Sigman Byrd
Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin