Slashdot Mirror
Global Access To University-Derived Medicines
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."
Last time I checked, Universities don't make drugs. Doing the research on which a drug is based is the cheap/easy part. Taking a lead compound through development, animal testing, Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 Clinical Trials is the expensive/hard part. Univerities don't do the hard part. So sure, let them share all the drugs they've developed.
The NIH alone contributed 28% of medical research funds in 2005. There are other sources of state and federal funds. My statistical source for the roughly half number is from an article in Wired magazine (I couldn't find it online; do a lexus nexus search if your school or workplace will pay for it ;-)). It stated that government money previously provided for the majority of the funding for medical research, and government funding for health science has increased, but industry funding has increased faster, so now private funds account for just over half. Not for profit private foundations also provide some funding (I've seen 10% attributed to them). Whatever the exact numbers, it should be clear that the fruits of this research is excessively ending up in for profit hands.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
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.
Except, of course, for the people who can't afford some patented treatment because the lack of competition is keeping the price out of their reach. But who cares about them, right?
Don't forget the corollary, "A conservative is a liberal who has yet to fall on hard times."
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Activists such as these (and everyone else who complains about drug prices) just needs to get over the fact that SCIENCE IS EXPENSIVE, and that someone has to pay for it."
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 and just outright _paid_ for the R&D? Or the same level we have today, for a fifth of the cost?
So, tell me again, why are we publically financing expensive marketing campaigns and protected pharmcorp beurocracies?