RSS
Bad Science Blog Highlights The Harm Done By Pharma Patents
from the it's-a-start dept
CG was the first of a bunch of folks who sent in a link to Dr. Ben Goldacre from the always excellent Bad Science blog taking on the issue of the harm done by pharma patents:
On top of that, he should look at the some of the work done by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in detailing how patents harm innovation in the drug process. Or, hell, he can look to the US government itself. The GAO put out a report a few years ago, noting that patents appeared to be hindering, not helping, the development of new drugs. Another great source of detailed information is the chapter in David Levine and Michele Boldrin's book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, that directly deals with the case of pharma patents (pdf). It goes through the history of different patent laws in different countries and totally debunks the idea that patents create true incentives for pharma. There's plenty of evidence of harm, but very, very little true evidence that patents create actual incentives for innovation.
Ignoring patent and licensing issues has allowed Dr Yusuf Hamied, director of Cipla, to innovate: even though each drug is officially owned by a different company, he could put a common combination of three treatments (Stavudine, Lamivudine and Nevirapine) into one simple, single combination pill. This increases treatment compliance -- it's easier to take your medication correctly -- and that keeps you alive longer, while reducing the emergence of resistant strains.From there, Goldacre runs through the traditional arguments both in favor of and against pharma patents, and concludes:
Hamied calls his pill Triomune (he also offers "Antiflu", a copy of Tamiflu for the developing world, and many more). In 2001 he was selling to MSF clinics for $350 per person per year, more than 30 times cheaper than the official versions of these drugs. Triomune is now only $87 a year. This is amazing. Hamied is a hero.
Richard Sykes, head of GlaxoSmithKline (and now retired rector of Imperial College London) disagreed. He called Hamied a "pirate" and described the quality of Indian generic drugs as "iffy". Hamied says GSK is a "global serial killer" for charging high prices for their medication. So who is right?
If the global $550bn pharmaceutical industry are trying to make an economic case for patents in the developing world, then they must argue that the benefit to drug development from the financial incentives in these tiny corners of the world market is so significant -- so vital, the final link in the incentive chain -- that it is more important than millions of unnecessary deaths. I am not a health economist, but I doubt that is a fair swap, and this is not what patent laws were invented for.Indeed. I'm glad to see Goldacre take on this issue, though I hope that he'll spend some time exploring the work done by many before him that goes much more deeply into the problems with pharma patents. For example, in explaining why pharma patents can be "good," Goldacre trots out the line "It takes about $800m and 10 years to bring a drug to market," but that's been widely debunked. If Goldacre (or anyone else) is interested in the subject, they should check out Merrill Goozner's detailed and thorough analysis of this claim in his book, appropriately entitled The $800 Million Pill, which thoroughly debunks the notion that it costs a pharma company $800 million to bring a pill to market.
On top of that, he should look at the some of the work done by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in detailing how patents harm innovation in the drug process. Or, hell, he can look to the US government itself. The GAO put out a report a few years ago, noting that patents appeared to be hindering, not helping, the development of new drugs. Another great source of detailed information is the chapter in David Levine and Michele Boldrin's book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, that directly deals with the case of pharma patents (pdf). It goes through the history of different patent laws in different countries and totally debunks the idea that patents create true incentives for pharma. There's plenty of evidence of harm, but very, very little true evidence that patents create actual incentives for innovation.
I have a business...
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Software Patents
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
If Masnick is such an expert it's a shame he doesn't take on the issue himself instead of trying to publicly claim superior expertise while contributing ... what ?.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is easy
"In February of 2009, GSK head Andrew Witty announced that the company will reduce all drug prices to 25% Western prices in the 50 least developed countries, release intellectual property rights for substances and processes relevant to neglected disease into a patent pool to encourage new drug development, and invest 20% of profits from the least developed countries in medical infrastructure for those countries"
Sounds great, except that they decided NOT to include AIDS in the designation, meaning large numbers of African nations and/or districts/counties/etc. didn't receive the aid and price cuts as promised. For those that did, Glaxo made some effort to raise prices in the "West"(also defined oddly by Glaxo to include several East Bloc nations) so that the pricing in Africa and Asia would remain relatively static.
And it should be noted that GlaxoSmithKline is a corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Phuck Big Pharma
I'd LOVE to see drug re-importation allowed, at least from western countries. That fifty dollar pill is profitable to sell for five in Canada? Hey, let's get some of those. We're all North Americans Free Trading, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
From The New England Journal of Medicine
Doesn't sound to me that the notion is thoroughly debunked at all. Lots of claims and assumptions, little proof.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From The New England Journal of Medicine
You should try reading the actual book.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Veeda CR Corporate Research Blog
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: From The New England Journal of Medicine
More to the point, apparently the author is an economist and writer who has never worked in a medical research lab or for a pharmaceutical company.
Gotta love those "experts" in the field who, despite having never done the work, will be more than happy to tell everyone else exactly how it should be done.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: From The New England Journal of Medicine
I'll repeat: you should try reading the actual book. You may be surprised. I'd argue that the NEJM review does not do it justice. At all.
More to the point, apparently the author is an economist and writer who has never worked in a medical research lab or for a pharmaceutical company.
Yes, how dare an economist actually look at the economics of something.
I find it a lot more convincing that he's an economist and didn't work for a pharma company.
Gotta love those "experts" in the field who, despite having never done the work, will be more than happy to tell everyone else exactly how it should be done.
Um. His expertise is in economics. The books is about economics. What's your complaint again?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Deficit
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Chinese handicraft
http://www.chinesehandicraft.net
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment