John has developed a conceptual and empirical methodology for defining and identifying bias in industrial drug testing and government pharmaceutical regulation. This involves first identifying technical inconsistencies in discourse and practices between the technical standards (or stances) agreed/taken publicly by medical scientists/doctors, on the one hand, and claims that they subsequently make often within specific drug testing or regulatory decision-making, on the other. Secondly, he then maps the technical inconsistencies on to the commercial and/or institutional interests of stakeholders, such as the pharmaceutical industry, government regulatory agencies, the medical profession and/or patient organizations. This theme is exemplified in the following publications:
John Abraham Science, Politics and the Pharmaceutical Industry, 310pp, UCL Press, 1995.
John Abraham (1994) ‘Bias in Science and Medical Knowledge: The Opren Controversy’ Sociology 28: 717 36.
John Abraham (1993) ‘Scientific Standards and Institutional Interests: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Benoxaprofen in the UK and the US’ Social Studies of Science 23: 387-444.
John Abraham and Courtney Davis (2009) ‘Drug evaluation and the permissive principle: continuities and contradictions between standards and practices in antidepressant regulation’ Social Studies of Science 39: 569-98.
John Abraham (2002) ‘Drug safety and the safety of patients: the challenge to medicine and health from permissive expert assessments’ Health, Risk & Society 4: 19-29.
John Abraham (2008) ‘Bias and science in knowledge production: implications for the politics of drug regulation’ in (eds.) O. O’Donovan & K. Glavanis-Grantham, Power, Politics and Pharmaceuticals, pp. 43-57, Cork University Press.