Antibiotic Resistant Staph Antibiotic Discovered 493
edward.virtually@pob writes "CNN is reporting that a team of scientists has discovered an extremely effective killer of the antibiotic resistant form of staph infection occuring naturally in rock pools. Unfortunately, despite the obvious cheap potential availability of this cure, do not expect it to be cheaply available. The employer of the scientists, AquaPharm Bio-Discovery Limited, the story notes 'is keeping the identity of its MRSA-killing bacteria a closely guarded secret, and taken out patents on how they can be cultivated and used.' Oh well."
Patenting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember claritin before the FDA deemed it fine to go over the counter? It was stupifying the price drop.
I hope these people don't find the cure for AIDS. That would be one that would be ethically/morally wrong to abuse.
"Oh Well"? (Score:4, Interesting)
What a blas thing to say about a flawed and greed-sustaining patent process that could potentially keep something that could save millions of lives worldwide locked up for access to the rich and powerful only.
If you heard such a thing about a composite material that could strengthen the wings of aircraft or some new safety device that could reduce automobile accident fatalities by 35%, would you say 'Oh well' to that too?
Something has got to be done... (Score:2, Interesting)
than willing to sell off their discoveries to the
highest bidder instead of doing what's right for
humanity. I mean, for christ sakes. How vampirical
is it to put profit about human lives? I think
Chris Rock said something to the effect that we
haven't cured a disease in 50 some odd years, but
we used to do it twice a week. It's really sad.
Re:It might even be a good thing to keep it secret (Score:2, Interesting)
Nail On The Head Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)
With all the complaining about how the USPTO awards this or that patent for the obvious things, it's this patenting of medicinces which I find the most anti-social. It's like, "I'm going to discover something which may save lives, but I want the ability to restrict, for profit, how it gets used." Makes me feel my healthcare premiums aren't so much an insurance policy as a licensing fee. While I feel people do need compensation for their efforts, I feel any kind of patent awarded on medicines or medical treatments should have a much limited scope. I.e. any pharmacutical should be allowed to produce the medication with a minimal fee. Otherwise we become embroiled in these debates, like africans can't afford this or that because they cannot afford it, so they die, and it's a fait acompli massacre or genocide.
And then there's the separate issue of this antibiotic: how long before staph is resistant to it, too.
The best thing I ever did to fight respiratory infections was to stop eating antibiotic laden meat.
An new antibiotic? How about a new approach (Score:5, Interesting)
The article went on to note that a diferent approach seemed to be 100% effective in killing bacteria.
Bacteriophages.
Very simply if you take sample from the places that a particular strain of a bacteria is known to be present - an then alalyse these samples - you will eventually find a virus that simply eats the bacteria. Cultivate large amounts of the virus, and you can use it to kill the bacteria.
The article highlighted the Russians who, during the cold war, became quite good with Bateriophages. But that problems with patents and financing prevented the commercial exploitation
of their knowlegebase.
From what I could understand bacteriophage development is so simple, it would be impossible to make any money out of it.
Can't make any money out of it?!!?
Makes you think.
Re:And they shouldn't make money why? (Score:5, Interesting)
If its so "obvious" that it should be common knowledge just because it was found in a pool, how come it wasn't stumbled upon before? The fact that it has been found now is good indication that drug companies have been encouraged to look for such things.
I do think it would be an interesting economic model though to put a bounty on certain types of drugs, say $2 billion for a antibiotic-resistant staph antibiotic. When funded by the whole world, numbers like $10billion for major drugs wouldn't be that high. Insurance companies would likely offer bounties as well.
Re:which is why (Score:2, Interesting)
Cut out the middleman (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt we could walk around slinging $700M+ to every drug company that had a nice idea this year.
In countries with comprehensive free healthcare, the national health services already spend far far more on drugs than this, and much of that expense goes into paying for a relatively few number of patients who require recent, still patented (and thus expensive) drugs.
Here's how it could work: a group of health services, e.g. all those within the EU, promises to reimburse a research group for their drug development costs in return for them getting their hands on new drugs at generic prices. The cost is spread out over several health services, and the total yearly drugs bill goes down, because they only have to provide capital to develop the drug once, and then they get it at generic prices, rather than paying through the nose for the drug for 20 years or so.
It's rather like developing operating systems - it's cheaper to club together with some other companies to develop a single OS that you can then use freely than it is to keep paying out year after year after year to some other company. Witness the corporate adoption of Linux by IBM, HP and so on. It just makes sense financially.
Fewer people die as result, because the health services can afford more and better drugs. More useful drugs are developed, because they aren't developed solely with the aim of making a profit on the drugs (look at all the stomach-acid suppression drugs like Zantac and Tagamet for examples of drugs that are designed to create a cashflow rather than cure the underlying problem). Developing countries are more likely to be able to get their hands on life-saving drugs at sane prices.
Cut out the middleman. Let the users of the drugs (the health services) develop the drugs according to their needs and then use them freely.
If you're worried that this sounds like socialism (a dirty word in the US for some peculiar reason), then replace 'health services' with 'healthcare companies'. Is it still socialism if healthcare companies do it to improve their bottom line, and yet still improve their service to their patients?
This does assume that health services/companies can develop drugs for similar costs to drug companies. Still, without having to spend enormous quantities on marketing, free pens, paper and holidays to doctors and shareholder dividends, it might just be possible.
Bacteriophage *won't* work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patenting.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Unless of course, a bulk of the research was actually done in public universities, funded by taxpayers. It can often be the case.
There are drugs that make it to the end of 10 year trials, and fail, with billions going down the drain.
And the accountants can easily claim a tax-loss on it. Nobody with any brains will cry a single friggin tear over that.
*THIS* is what you pay for, not the manufacturing cost.
We also pay for obscenely extravagant bonuses for executives who do no research, but who spend 50% of their time planning corporate games, such as mega debt-creating mergers and acquisitions, and the other 50% of the time flying in corporate owned jets, playing golf or skiing, or partying at corporate retreats.
Nah, Dude. Sorry.
It ain't so clean and simple as that.
This is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Motive (Score:1, Interesting)
No one will sponsor efforts like this (or laying cable or fiber for that matter) if they aren't going to get a return on their money. Likewise no one (well few people) is going to perform the work without getting paid for their effort.
Drug Resistance (Score:4, Interesting)
For those of you who don't remember biology, bacteria resistance is particularly nasty because unrelated kinds of bacteria can actually swap genes for traits (including resistance.) Thus, you could take an incomplete course of antibiotics, and end up with drug-resistant e-coli in your gut (which are harmless.) Then, you catch a nastier infection (say, a bacterial pneumonia), the nasty bacterium manages to swap genes with your drug-resistant e-coli, and WHAM, you've got a deadly infection that is resistant to all available drugs. Hospitals are particularly deadly because they tend to treat the sickest patients with the most advanced drugs... and as a result many drug resistant strains LIVE IN HOSPITALS! (Yes, this is a true fact - disinfection is a serious bitch with certain strains of bacteria...)
The longer they keep this new stuff away from the general public, the better it will be in the event we REALLY need it.
Re:Patenting.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's look at this the other way: if there was no ability to patent drugs, would Merck be able to afford the $2.4Bn in R&D costs? (The true cost of R&D is probably higher than this, as there are certainly some in-licensing costs to account for here, in which Merck purchases compounds from other companies).
Yes, Merck spends a good deal on marketing, and makes a very healthy profit. The profit comes from the blockbuster model most of the large companies follow: there is some volatility in R&D spend, but much higher volatility in the market. A strong drug can generate orders of magnitude more dollars than the R&D spend. With such a model, pharma companies tend to blitz market, attempting to make as much as they can. The spend on marketing because they make even more in profits. All of that, however, presupposes that they have good drugs to sell.
It is rare that any one company has a "single source" of something that people need. Much profit these days in is antihyperlipidemia drugs, of which there are many. Likewise, there are two major Cox-II inhibitor drugs on the market, with more coming. Of the top classes of drugs, only Pfizer has a semi-monopoly with Viagra.
Part of the problem here is our irrational health care system. I'd agree with you (I'd imagine) that with a more rational healthcare system, the average cost per drug would be less, marketing costs would be less, and there would still be enough funding for R&D.
Re:Drug Resistance (Score:2, Interesting)