Slashdot Log In
Global Access To University-Derived Medicines
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 14, 2006 07:19 PM
from the what's-right-is-right dept.
from the what's-right-is-right dept.
Nicholas Stine writes, "Universities should make their patented biomedical innovations accessible to those in poor countries, according to a consensus statement signed by dozens of international global health leaders. Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, a student group active at over 30 universities in North America, drafted the Philadelphia Consensus Statement urging universities to adopt licensing policies that would facilitate access to all university-derived medicines in developing countries. Notable signatories include 28 non-governmental organizations, four Nobel laureates, Justice Edwin Cameron of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal, Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners in Health."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This is a horrible idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Consensus statement suggests that Universities should be "engaging with nontraditional partners, such as public-private partnerships or developing country institutions, creating new opportunities for drug development, and carving out neglected disease research exemptions in any university patents or licenses". So in other words, instead of selling their patents and discoveries to drug companies, they should be giving it away? What incentive would one of these "nontraditional partners" have to sell a $50 drug for $.05 when they could sell it on the black market for $5.00?
Drugs will not solve the long term problems in developing countries, they'll just make them worse. Many of these countries do not have the natural resources to handle their populations. This lack of resources leads to many of the diseases that our drugs are supposed to fix (plus many other problems, such as the constant wars and corruption present in Africa). Sending them cheap drugs puts more strain on existing resources, since more people are able to survive in an area that can't support them. We need to attack the root cause of their problems: corruption, overpopulation, lack of education (particularly sex education), and sanitation. Once these are solved/improved, the need for access to new miracle drugs is greatly reduced.
In short, the consortium is barking up the wrong tree. They should be trying to pursuade drug manufacturers to ship more reduced/free products to these third world countries. That would provide the benefits they are looking for, while not reducing the drug's value and risking future research investments. I'm not saying this is a great idea either, but it doesn't nearly the same negative impact as giving away the patent or production methods.
Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, now that you might be back to reality- if you're a university professor, your main motivation is not money. If it was, you would be in industry. Or more likely, gotten a law degree instead of a degree in medicine or microbiology. The people working these jobs aren't going to quit because they're suddenly not making a fortune. Hell, they weren't making a fortune anyway- the university was.
The fact is that some things are more important than money (actually, I can't think of anything less important than money, but thats for another time). There are people dieing that don't need to, because they can't afford drugs which already exist. Not because its expensive/difficult to make the drug, but because patents prevent alternative manufacturers from doing so. This is not acceptable.
Furthermore, this is university research. Over 95% of it is paid for with public money- money given to them by government grants. If the public is already paying for it, the public should have full benefits of the discovery. There is no excuse for taking my tax dollars for research, and then forcing me to pay Pheizer or Merks for the results of that research. All research at public universities or using government money should be public domain.
Parent
Why shouldn't we get paid for our work? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why it's okay for people to go into just about every other career for the money, but if someone in science decides to make a buck they're evil. I made ~16k per year while a graduate student. My friends who went into business made ~60k out of college. Five years later I made ~40k as a post-doc (on the high-end of the salary scale). My friends were up to 100k. As an Assistant Professor I make ~70k (on the high end). All of my friends from college make over 100k, and most make over 150k. My work isn't easier either. I put in a minimum of 60 hours per week, and when writing grants I often put in 80+ hours. My friends who are making over 100k per year - a 'tough week' is one where they work over 50 hours. If a scientist put in the blood, sweat, and tears to produce a patent that actually produces money (most don't), then all the more power to them. And people wonder why the younger (American) generation aren't interested in a career in science.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I looked (like on my monthly statement), a post-doc is a salaried position, and pretty well paid too.
In Sweden, doctoral students are paid a real salary, since, after all, they are doing research and teaching. The salary isn't all that high - they're doing
Leech! (Score:3, Insightful)
I REALLY resent all of the University profs who get their money from Government grants, patent something, make a ton of money, and NONE of it goes back to the Taxpayer. You're basically getting fat off of the backs of the average citizen.
It used to be that Profs did research for the enjoyment of it, and they shared their research far more willingly. That's all changed since Academia bribed Congress into one of the biggest giveaways in t
Re:Why shouldn't we get paid for our work? (Score:4, Insightful)
We paid you, we supported your research, we should own the result. If you want to own the result, then feel free to go start up your own lab and look for the venture capital to fund your research just like every other person who wants to strike out into business for themselves. You knew when you entered academia that it was a cushy job with a nice pension (wouldn't want to forget that since they're virtually non-existent in the private sector). You're getting a better deal than virtually every private sector peon gets, so quit your whining.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What used to be:
People got a PhD or MD and went on to do research. People used to get tenure either when they were hired or shortly thereafter.
Abundant funding and early starting times made it possible for people to enjoy doing science in their most productive years.
What is there now:
5-10 year postdocs when you get paid next to nothing (
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, I'll get over it the day the pharmaceuticals are actually spending their money on research.
You do realize that not even 20% of the pharm money is spent on R&D, right? Go take a look at any public pharmcorps financial reports.
You do realize that means we could get _five_ times the current amount of R&D if we scrapped patents a
Better Ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how you pronounced that as "all that essential science should stay in monopoly hands, away from the public good".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent said "Asking Universities to provide access to their discoveries would reduce the value of their discoveries on the open market..." and then: "They should be trying to pursuade drug manufacturers to ship more reduced/free products to these third world countries."
Private industry is heavily dependent on licensing publicly funded discoveries from universities (search on the phrase "technology transfer" at any research-oriented university to see examples). Universities could include in those licenses t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that putting a clause as you suggest in the licensing agreement probably wouldn't lower the value of the agreement to a pharma company. However, I disagree that companies won't do ANYTHING voluntarily that would restrict their profits. Most major pharma outfits sell products in the 3rd world for little to no profit - and often at a loss. In part this is to a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same that they have now - none. Drugs and medical devices are largely developed on government money, because there's no reason to spend your own money when the governments are willing to pay (both through grants, and through the welfare state).
But hey, of course this company is entitled to kill millions in third world countries in order to maximise their return on you
Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, there is already quite a bit of public money invested in biomedical research. The NIH budget is about 28 billion dollars [nih.gov] (one of the major reasons why the U.S. is a world research leader, by the way).
Currently, universities are encouraged to patent innovations created with federal funding and make money off those patents, thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act [economist.com]. This statement calls on universities to open up their patents when doing so could help the developing world. It does not appear to call for any changes in how public money is spent -- only in what is done with the products of that public investment.
Parent
Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This is a horrible idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, most universities reinvest a large portion of their licensing money into research anyway, so the cycle is largely self-feeding already.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, suppose some compound was discovered which showed some promise as a lead for a cure for cancer. It was 100% government funded. Are you suggesting that 100% of any profits made from the compound be surrendered to the government? Nobody would manufacture it even if every single step of the drug R&D process was completely paid for - even if the pills cost 5 cents to make
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
as someone just said; 4 different ways to make your penis stiff.
The placebos in the Cold Symptom isle at the drug store are part of a multi-billion dollar market. Couple this with the rise in spending on advertising and lobbying -- and we have a drug industry that already knows where profits lie.
There is already technology, to reduce the length of time to create an immunization from the 12 to 15 months that the "injected egg" technique uses, to something like 3
unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:unfair (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
This reminds me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, hey, if we can, then it's immoral not to.
I guess the poor "deserve" everything now (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically... (Score:4, Interesting)
...everybody signed the declaration except the actual people doing and paying for the drug research.
In other news, Slashdot readers signed a petition for free computers while drivers signed another for free gas.
Re:And in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Followed by everyone being wiped out by the flu, but at least they had 5 choices of drugs for making their dick hard until the very end.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But apparently you don't mind that the drugs you pay to have created are patented by someone else, huh? They take our money, use it to do research, and then keep the results for themselves. You and I and the rest of the taxpayers are getting screwed.