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."
Followed by drug development plummeting because the universities quit doing the research studies the drug companies used.
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.
If we did this, who would invest the Billions necessary to research and produce these drugs? You or I can likely live very happily without worrying too much about money, but corporations cannot create wealth out of thin air. In areas like software, I agree that most patents should be "free and open". In healthcare, patents are what enables drug companies to make enough money to invest in future drugs. Without protection that patents offer drug manufacturers, it is likely that private investment would dwindle to almost nothing, leaving our government (via higher taxes) to pick up the tab (unless you are suggesting we don't need any future drugs or medical devices ... which is an entirely different discussion).
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Yup, all those university professors who studied for at least 10 years in order to be in a position to do medical research will become horribly disincentived. They're all going to quit and go work a McJob instead.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Actually, there is already quite a bit of public money invested in biomedical research. The NIH budget is about 28 billion dollars (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. 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.
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.
Personally I feel that universities should be free to patent at will but they should be required to disclose the percentage of the research that was funded form public grants and that percentage of any profit derrived from the patent should be given back to the grant giving agency to fund future research. This way the cycle becomes self feeding. This way there is no conflict of ownership between research that is funded both publicly and privately the university gets to continue to recieve grants and do more research and increase their fame while attracting more distinguished faculty.