If a casual observer were to take stock of the pharma social media conversation, it would resemble a heavyweight boxing match.

“In this corner, weighing in at 140 pounds and hailing from behind a computer screen somewhere are the social media advocates.   In this corner, tipping the scales at 800 pounds, from Washington, D.C., the FDA.”

Except in a boxing match, when the bell sounds, the two opponents leaver their respective corners and meet in the middle.  Of course, when they get to the middle, they spend some time pounding on each other—but they work it out.  In what seems like an endless quest to convince the FDA that pharmaceutical and biotech companies have a place in social media, neither side has been willing to leave its corner frequently enough.  In fact, until the infamous November public hearing, both sides tended to stay outside the ring—let alone their own corners.

Each side of the debate is standing steadfastly to their core beliefs.  The social media proponents are calling for full transparency, authenticity and real-time engagement.  They want social media unencumbered by the bureaucracy, regulations and processes of the FDA.  But the FDA is sticking to its guns and wants to ensure fair balance, the communication of risk information, a plan for adverse event reporting and off-label usage discussion.  But if neither side is willing to budge from their respective corners, we are bound to remain at a standstill.

The good news is that the impasse seems to be thawing out a bit.  Folks like Fabio Gratton and John Mack are making efforts to seek the FDA’s input and find common ground.  The FDA too for its part has been a willing participant in this delicate dance.  In fact, if either side has been more willing to move off its original laurels it has been the FDA.  The FDA called the November public hearing (albeit after much prodding).  The FDA itself is on Twitter and has recently expressed a willingness to find some common ground.

Both the FDA, pharma companies and social media agencies need to find the middle ground.  Agencies can’t stubbornly insist that every interaction in social media has to be immediate.  At the same time, the FDA cannot hold healthcare companies responsible for monitoring the broad expanse of the Internet for adverse events.  Similarly, pharmaceutical companies need to realize that social media is not a platform for product promotion—but a platform for providing access to information.

Rather than standing in their respective corners and plotting the knockout punch, all stakeholders need to meet in the middle on a shared set of values.  What is it?  The patient.  The FDA’s primary concern is the safety and health of the patient.  The pharmaceutical company should be focused on finding better treatment options for the patient.  The social media agency, if it has the right mindset, should believe that social media can help provide better access to information for…you guessed it; the patient!  Only once common ground is agreed upon will there be any hope of moving pharmaceutical social media forward.