Biology Goes Open Source 100
cford writes "According to Forbes some of the drug company giants are finally realizing that their genetic research is worth more if they give it away. 'Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland, drug giant, has helped uncover which of the 20,000 genes identified by the Human Genome Project are likely to be associated with diabetes. But rather than hoard this information, as drug firms have traditionally done, it is making it available for free on the World Wide Web. "It will take the entire world to interpret these data," says Novartis research head Mark Fishman. "We figure we will benefit more by having a lot of companies look at these data than by holding it secret."'"
What do you know (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I do not want to be placed into a pool full of a mutant sea bass with freakin' laser beams on their head (Yes, I've seen their secret plans). Do you?
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not talking about licensing a portion... (Score:2, Informative)
They're not talking about licensing a portion; they're talking about giving away knowledge regarding which portion likely relates to diabetes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If I found the cure to AIDS I would do two things
1 Make sure that a vaccine was developed.
2 Try to make some money off if it (notice how I said some...).
You know the more I think about your statement the more ridiculous it sounds. If I (after my hard work or even lucky research) found a way to generate hyper-efficient solar panels you bet your ass I would try to profit off it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And you thought it was all those donuts...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I.e, since they cannot hope to interpret it by themselves, therefore not being able to leverage it commercially, they publish as a last resort, so that they can benefit in some (unforeseen by them? to a greater or lesser degree) form after the whole world has worked to interpret the data.
It doesn't look like generosity, fraternal love or willful cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll always find a way to cook the goose that laid the Golden egg.
Less ethical corporations will take this data, use it to extend what THEY know about it, and hord it for a profit.
Unless, of course, the data was released under an Open License.
Patent (Score:1)
I'll call it our open source money maker.
C'mon, we can do it!
How long until legal problems manifest themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
come up with some 'problem' to squash this
wonderful idea.
Re:How long until legal problems manifest themselv (Score:2)
Biological Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I mean, c'mon!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very obvious that patents have spun completely out of control, and that the public has bought hook,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If somebody finds that gene and patents it we're all in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic behind patents on genes (or so they argue) is that it requires research to understand and find applications to a specific gene, even though the actual gene it technically not unknown form the start. You know, sort of like the process of searching a software patent database, and figuring out what the patents mean and how to use them. Actually, has anyone tried to patent the application of a specific software patent yet...?
Re: (Score:1)
Mainly a good PR move . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
nah, it's the best early april fool's joke evar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gimme a break --should we consider them generous? (Score:2)
That's like all of us contributing articles and money to Wikipedia, and then Wikipedia says, "Hey, here are some articles that you can read for free --we won't charge you any money."
<sarcasm>Thanks a lot, Novartis, for your huge contribution! I will express my gratitude by blinking my eyes. Once. (Jus
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I think all findings on the human genome project should be open. It took a huge effort and even persons at home let spare cycles run on this project. Our bodies, and what's inside should be open since it's not something 'they' invented, manufactured or engineered. Whatever drugs they're developing could be closed, but generics should definitely be allowed too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, not only is the sequence published, so is the program. So if you happen to have a million dollar sequencer, you could do this yourself
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it's the same way with you, right?
So why should pharmaceutical companies be any different?
(Heck, since Novartis is actually working with infectious diseases, and is actually releasing some of their work product, they're already doing more to help the state of affairs in infectious diseases than the two of us put
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, in Slashdot-ese:
Step 1: Identify all of the human genes (the HGP)
Step 2: Find which of these genes are associated with diabetes
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!
To draw a long bow on the subject... (Score:1)
Very true. Closed source as you put it, led to the problems of Vioxx (Rofecoxib) and Celebrex (Celecoxib) cover ups with regards to heart attack risk, in the sense that the drug companies were not forthcoming on research which showed negative outcomes and only sold the good news to the FDA (although this is now a prohibited practice). This is not going to happen very often any more, since the payouts from lost lawsuits far outweigh the profits.
Placing the genetic information into the open arena may resul
Re:Speaking of which.. (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman [wikipedia.org]
Clearly you went straight to the naked pictures and skipped the second sentence of the article you link that points out that the plural of "woman" is "women" and not "Womans". Not that the post would have been funny if you could spell.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Remember this: (Score:3, Insightful)
However keep in mind that they are not providing the world with their raw data.
Rest assured that the milked it for anything that could give a profit, stripped that off and released the rest.
This is how it happens with large scale datasets all the time.
An example of what should be done! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A step in the right direction (Score:5, Informative)
I've done a little research on AIDS, for example, and to give you an example of what patents do for the cost of medicine, take a look at this quote from the New York Times article, "Look at Brazil." [nytimes.com]
"Until a year ago, the triple therapy that has made AIDS a manageable disease in wealthy nations was considered realistic only for those who could afford to pay $10,000 to $15,000 a year or lived in societies that could."
In developing countries, the cost of patented medication is the reason why many families cannot afford it and so many suffer from it. Now look at another quote from the same article:
"Brazil now produces some triple therapy for $3,000 a year and expects to do much better, and the price could potentially drop to $700 a year or even less."
Many countries cannot do this for fear of economic sanctions, which means the next logical step would be for companies to open up their medical and biological information, for the good of humanity. Not only will this help potential consumers of this medication, but also provide a base for other companies to build on to excel each other's knowledge.
obsession with cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, people do have a history of being upset with someone who says "Your money or your life."
We might chalk it up to basic human irrationality. After all, there are several popular economic theories that explain to us why the companies' behavior is rational. And we all know that we're go
Re: (Score:1)
Especially with a disease like HIV, more and more research is needed to combat the ever-changing virus. AIDS today is not AIDS of a few years ago, and even with excellent compliance to medical regimen, our current array of antivirals will soon be inadequate therapy for HIV and AIDS patients.
Now, I agree that 10-1
Novartis fighting India over generic drugs (Score:3, Interesting)
You are quite right when you say that patent may be good for the pharmaceutical companies, but are terrible for the rest of the world.
In India, Novartis is using all its legal muscle to challenge a provision in the Indian patent law that has made it possible for India to develop a strong generic drugs industry. This has made affordable medicines available not only in India, but to other developing countries as well. If Novartis wins the case, this could mean that access to affordable drugs in the third w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like Soviet Russia. You can have everything in an empty shop for free.
The real cause of high prices in medications is the FDA approval process. It costs, on AVERAGE, about a BILLION dollars to get a drug approved in the US. A patent lasts 20 years, and it takes a
Re: (Score:1)
$3 billion, after 10 years at 20% interest, is $18 billion. To make money at a rate such that, after 10 years, they will have made as much money as if they had invested it at 20%, the company has to make a profit of about $600,000,000 per year.
The figure of 20% may be too high for large, stable companies. I don't know what the right figure would be. 10% is obviously too low.
Re:A step in the right direction (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, drug companies don't suddenly stop making profit once the patent expires and competition begins. Look at how many companies sell plain old acetyl-salicilate (aka aspirin). They're obviously making money. So that's the first hole in your argument right there.
Secondly, drug companies seem to forget that not everyone has a US income level. The price of medication is the same or more expensive outside the US than inside. This is to prevent people from "smuggling" meds into the US that were bought cheaper elsewhere. God forbid! So instead of getting into a 20 times bigger WORLD market, they decide to produce less, at a higher price. North americans can afford it - barely. And only the upper class everywhere else. And the rest, well, they just die younger. Who cares, right?
Oh and as a doctor I've been invited to many, MANY dinners - at 5 star hotels, by pharmaceutical companies. I've had friends who have been flown to exotic locations for conferences on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. They want to give me lots of promotional things, from notepads to calculators and clocks, trying to recruit me as a salesman - they think my prescription pad is for hire. This costs money too.
If only they understood that although I might read about the new wonderdrug in medical journals, what I usually prescribe is the cheapest medication around. It's what my patients want. I always give them a choice - the latest thing is X, the cheapest is Y. Invariably they choose Y.
Big pharma should get that in their heads. The old products that they are still selling, even without patents, is what should fund the research. Someone who has taken lipitor for the past 10 years and is happy with it is probably not going to change in the NEXT 10 years.
They should not gouge people on a new med because a) they can, due to a monopoly situation and b) try to justify this gouging because of "the cost of research".
But then again, pharmacology has always been about commerce and making money. Healing the patient is incidental.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue with this is it's any company getting this money, not a government enforced monopoly. To the company who paid for R&D, this is looks like a bad deal. What needs to happen is something like the government buying these patents
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up an interesting point. Soviet Russia used invasive government coercion to benefit the public good. Now patent law uses invasive government coercion to benefit the public good.
In the end, the countries that let their people produce with
I call BS (Score:4, Interesting)
Good for Novartis (Score:1)
They've already got 20,000 patents lined up (Score:1)
Pharma patents are the worst of an evil bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok. I've patented all the STOP codons. No one can make a protein without handing me cash. Be warned!
Hurray! (Score:3, Insightful)
Post title is misleading, but parallels do exist (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Post title is misleading, but parallels do exis (Score:4, Insightful)
As a physician I am often shocked to think about how much pharmaceutical companies charge for medications. Especially considering that my practice is in the "third world", price is the absolute foremost concern for all my patients when it comes to prescribing a medication. They will often insist on an inferior generic product instead of paying three or four times as much for a newer, better drug. I understand that research is expensive.
I also know that a lot of money is spent "visiting" doctors trying to convince us that their product is the "best", organizing "conferences" for us (which are nothing more than sales pitches) with free dinner included, etc. Not to mention all the free pens, calculators, calendars and other promotional materials. Some of my colleagues virtually thrive on this stuff. I for one would rather see cheaper medication. Less price, higher volume is what I think they should be looking at. And if they can't make profit on volume, then they should stop trying to push that product as if it was the new Holy Grail - only the very rich will buy it - period.
A case in point - the vaccine for HPV (cervical cancer's principle cause). It costs over $300 PER DOSE and you need 3 doses. Whoa, that's $1000. With the average monthly salary at around $350 a month here, how many of those do they expect to sell? Even in the US a lot of people would stop and think about this. And how many do they expect me to keep on hand in my fridge at that price, taking into account expiration dates, breakages, etc? Great concept. Completely useless at that price.
Anyway, my $.02 worth. They shouldn't complain about being unprofitable - they've priced themselves out of the market. People will always get sick. They just can't afford to pay for the medication anymore.
what is the price of invention? (Score:1)
they've priced themselves out of the market. People will always get sick. They just can't afford to pay for the medication anymore.
There is a big confusion in this thread between generic drugs and on-patent drugs. It is barely acknowleged that a new drug costs close to a billion dollars to develop (yes, these costs are seperate from the marketing) - there is no understanding what it takes to recoup these costs - and if they are not recouped, guess what - close to no new drugs.
The major drug companies have indeed hit something of a wall - the low-hanging fruit has been picked, and new advances are much more hard-won at this point.
Biology was already open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Why this hype? (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of private firms have identified disease susceptibility genes. There is a company in Iceland called 'deCode' - http://www.decode.com/ [decode.com] which has been doing this stuff for many years now, exploiting the fact the iceland has a relatively stable and homogenous genetic population. They have genetic data available for more than 25% of the population of Iceland and they have innumerable papers and free online resources.
Not to mention the federal govt. has been doing this forever now and 'Human Genome Project' and 'Hapmap project' are well known.
Finally (Score:2)
OK, so now it's Open Source (Score:2)
What do we mean by Open Source? (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I'm asking this is I wasn't sure from the article if the company was actually giving anything away. It is not clear to me if I invent a new drug based off the information they provided, do I now owe them a royalty?
Open Source by patent (or copyright) is a great idea if you think you can make more money off licenses to others than by your own efforts. Secrecy is better if you think that your information is based on special insight and others will not be able to duplicate it independently for several decades. What they gave away (assuming they gave anything away) may not have much intrinsic value if it is easily duplicated by others.
Some good news (Score:1)
If I had power... (Score:2)
Releasing the data is good but not enough (Score:1)
Celera Genomics and Human Genome Project (Score:1)
Who did this research? (Score:1)
public domain not open source? (Score:1)
Also they are giving away the results of the research (e.g. data) - open source is not normally a term used in such circumstances. The Creative Commons licences (among others) were created because typical open source/free (as in speech) licencing models d
stop using OS in the wrong context (Score:2)
Giving up raw data is not "open technology". It is "open data". Does not involve new _invention_, just digging the facts.