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."
The problem is that the Universities are not the ones manufacturing these life saving medicines and processes, it's the drug companies. Asking Universities to provide access to their discoveries would reduce the value of their discoveries on the open market (since there'd now be multiple companies licensed to sell the product, one of which may not have needed to pay for the right). In such a scenario, what incentive does the research institute have to develop the drugs and medical devices other than government grants?
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.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
University funding plummets as drug companies refuse to allow others to reduce their profits by giving away the fruits of research for which they paid. Nice sentiment. Terrible idea.
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Great Cthulhu..."
Some of these universities have made hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments from the pharma companies. You think they are going to give up that gravy train so that dark people won't suffer and die? Universities are run by classic Limousine Liberals -- all for social programs unless it hits *their* cash flow.
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
Only about half of all medical research is privately funded, yet most new medicines end up being patented and owned by private companies. Shouldn't the people (US! the public!) who pay for the research be the ones who decide how it is used? In a democratic society, the people would actually own what they pay for and would choose to use it for the good of the worlds population. Too bad we live in a corporate oligarchy. We subsidize (or socialize if that's your bad word) the costs and risks of research, but we privatize the benefits so that only a few rich shareholders can profit while millions die of preventable diseases. We need a revolution.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
This reminds me of my petition that everybody capable of contributing to the development of lifesaving drugs drop whatever their current career is--be it software developer, accountant, homemaker, whatever--and dedicate the rest of their lives to developing lifesaving medicines.
Because, hey, if we can, then it's immoral not to.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
So somehow as a taxpayer in the U.S.A. who funded that research I should still be charged outrageous skyrocketing prices if I need it, but somehow people in foregin countries somehow deserve it more than I do and should have it given to them? I might well accept an argument that public funded medical research should have certain restrictions put on it's prices, but those restrictions should start with saying that the taxpayers who funded it should be charged no more than others who did not fund it (including Canadians and Europeans), not allow the patent holders to charge even more locally to offset giving the stuff away to "the poor". Lets not even get into discussions of how such giveaways usually enrich a corrupt government and seldom get to the targeted people, it's not even relivant in this case.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So what you're saying is that drug corporations should have to open up their IP, too. That their patents create artificial monopolies built on investments by the public, often from traditional development of material and techniques. That their corporate profits compete with the lives and health of the world that supports their corporations.
Funny how you pronounced that as "all that essential science should stay in monopoly hands, away from the public good".
--
make install -not war
...And by definition a funder of university drug research in SOME cases, I have a significant problem with this idea (that drug I pay to have created are forced to be sold cheaper somewhere else). And I am sure that should such silliness be attempted, a regulation preventing goverment funding will not be used in such a manner. and then you can kiss off university research !
I do know that profits on patents held by universities alows them to retain the best talent, and therefore continue innovative and ground-breaking work. Everyone benefits, believe it or not.
I am all for the common good, but not when 'student groups' decide that socialism is good for me and mine ! And I am sure that once thier folks or the taxpayers quit paying thier tuition, they will feel the same way. Remember the saying 'A liberal is a Conservative who has yet to be mugged'...
"Furthermore, this is university research. Over 95% of it is paid for with public money- money given to them by government grants."
Proof? Or is this another example of neither region numbers? And even if the research was paid for by public funds, the raw research will do no good without the practical work that private industry does to make certain the end result is safe and usable.
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.
Because your funding is coming from the Government, not from yourself!!!
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 the history of America. And quite frankly, innovation has taken a serious nose dive.
This is just Academic welfare.
This was true up to a certain point in time. What has happened in the last twenty or so years is that funding for science has plunged relative to the overall research needs.
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 (yeah, a bit above grad student but nowhere near enough to buy a house), then 5-6 years of tenure-track when you cannot make a misstep or else you are out. Assistant professors cannot do high risk research because it's now a publish or perish world quite literally. Once you get tenure, those that become big shots do have spare funds to do interesting research but get little time to do it themselves (the fun part). They end up managing huge numbers of people and become managers. Everyone else struggles for money, most often so much they have no time to spend in the lab anyway.
So current generation of scientists is increasingly bitter and feels like the system is using them without letting us do what we signed up for: explore. People do feel that using the system to their own benefit is only fair. Some feel that current system has got so bad that they have no obligation to it whatsoever, hence deterioration of research ethics (the end of the world scenario if you ask me but I see where it comes from).
Current system underpays scientists greatly, either in terms of direct compensation or by underfunding our research efforts turning us into grant writing machines rather than scientists. In your terms, we have few financial perks, but the nonfinancial have also largely disappeared. In short, don't be surprised that people are less and less willing "to put up with reduced economics".