The other night, I was watching this great cable show hosted by Penn and Teller, the former magicians, in which they set out to prove wrong popular myths and beliefs. The hosts interview academics, scientists, and even perform their own social experiments. For example, one recent show focused on whether the playing of violent video games can translate into actual violent behavior (the answer they reached: no).

The episode that really got my attention touched on breast cancer and research to find a cure or treatment for the disease. A representative from Breast Cancer Action, a nonprofit advocacy group based in California, spoke about how millions of dollars have been devoted to breast cancer research and still, there is no cure or treatment. She suggested it might be more effective to put additional dollars and efforts into the research pool rather than toward promotional projects such as breast cancer walks, pink pins, and other paraphernalia. Although these walks and tchotchkes are important to breast cancer survivors and family members seeking to raise awareness, these items are not necessarily putting money in the research bank or laboratory where real cures can be found. Her point was that we might not find a cure for breast cancer—or any disease—until we focus on the science, and pay less attention to the marketing.

So what does this all have to do with the pharma industry? Last week, Pfizer disclosed how much it had paid to doctors and other medical professionals and organizations in the United States during the second half of 2009. The disclosure comes on the heels of other company disclosure announcements (Eli Lilly, Merck, and GSK) which will soon be required under the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, which passed under Obama’s healthcare reform legislation.

The total amount Pfizer paid to have doctors speak on its behalf: $20 million, according to a March 31, company press release on the subject. During the same period, the company handed out $15.3 million to 250 research organizations to study how medicines work (i.e., clinical trials) and “to discover new medicines to treat and prevent life-threatening and debilitating illnesses.” The difference in these two sums brings me to my point. Although Pfizer notes that this funding represent “a small portion” of the company’s total R&D investments, the amount the company chose to disclose shows that between July 2009 and December 2009, Pfizer spent approximately $5 million more in the US promoting itself than it did on research toward finding new drugs or better drugs that can help patients globally.

I think Breast Cancer Action may have a point. Certainly, it’s important to educate the public about disease and prevention. But we also need to consider what we’re losing in the process—time and funds for the research that could make prevention unnecessary.