Slashdot Mirror
Nobel Laureate Attacks Medical Intellectual Property
An anonymous reader writes "Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who was fired by the World Bank blasted drug patents in an editorial in the British Medical Journal titled 'Scrooge and intellectual property rights.' 'Knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish its light.' In medicine, patents cost lives. The US patent for turmeric didn't stimulate research, and restricted access by the Indian poor who actually discovered it hundreds of years ago. 'These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded.' Billions of people, who live on $2-3 a day, could no longer afford the drugs they needed. Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research. A few scientists beat the human genome project and patented breast cancer genes; so now the cost of testing women for breast cancer is 'enormous.'"
How can you patent something that is a 'naturally' (using that term loosely) occurring genetic abnormality?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
...the guy who originally lit the candle didn't spend millions of dollars figuring out how to light it. I'm all for equal access, but if you're going to spend all this money doing something then it's only fair to be given the chance to reap the rewards.
Things haven't changed all that much since the days of theChamberlen family.
While I am no expert, nor am I really FOR these kinds of patents there is a valid reasoning TO have them. Primarily, it is reasoned that patents, including intellectual, drive innovation as people can actually make a profit on their discoveries as opposed to just being copy-catted. Of course, in practice, it doesn't quite work that way.
If there's one area where I think Eminent Domain applies, it is to this sort of "property." If the pharmaceutacals "own" a cancer drug, an AIDS drug, a heart valve palsy drug, then fucking TAKE it from them and give it to the world. If they have to be compensated under eminent domain laws, then give them a twenty year extension on their stupid penis pills, their fat-buster pills, or their toenail fungus cures. If they can do it with your house to make a bypass, then they should be able to do it with something that will really benefit society.
[
Why not? If you can forcefully let individual "sell" his property for the greater good, why not a corporation? What is the difference between taking a property from a house- or landowner and a pharmaceutical company?
The real question is what would be a better way to reward inventors than intellectual property arrangements. IP doesn't reward creation of an invention-but its restriction. It is clear that major corporate interests have abuse IP protection in various ways. The problem is that an alternative system isn't exactly obvious. The economist Henry George proposed replacing the system of patents and copyrights with a system of prize awards over 100 years ago. However, determining what inventions should be rewarded is still going to be difficult.
>>'Knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish its light.'
Apparently he was also a Girl Scout at some point...
The entire medical industry is broken. Probably to the point where it cannot be fixed. Government regulation could go a long way, but who really wants a bigger government?
1. Stop advertising drugs on TV and in magazines. You are not a doctor. You shouldn't be "asking your doc" if zotramiphil is right for your itchy ass.
2. Stop developing drugs for stupid shit. Yes, lots of people have Type2 diabetes. We already have a cure for that; a treadmill. Stop wasting money to develop a drug *just* to make money off a stupid disease.
2a. Why can an old guy take a drug to make his dick hard when I can't smoke a joint?
3. If a company develops a truly amazing cure/drug, the government should step in and buy it for the cost of development. The drug should them be distributed for the cost of production inside the US and for twice the cost of production outside the US. Once the costs are recouped, it should be just the cost of production inside and outside the US.
4. Get rid of medical lawsuits. A judge and jury have no idea if what a doc did was right or wrong. Appoint a commission of well-respected docs and have all medical complaints go through that office. If the commission decides the doc was wrong, then the doc should be fired and the patient recouped in a fair way.
4a. Make hospitals stop charging so much. Why does it cost $200 for an x-ray and $10 for a tylenol? Because of lawsuits.
5. Make US employers provide health insurance. Yes, all of them. Call it the cost of doing business in the USA.
5a. For every non-US employee a company contracts or subcontracts, make them pay money directly to the federal government's unemployment fund. In other words, a non-US employee working for a US company still gets taxed at the same rate as a US employee would.
6. Identify the hypochondriacs and truly sick people. Fix them. I go to the doc, on average, once a year for a checkup. Maybe once every 3 years for an illness. My kids get checkups and rarely go to the ER for being sick or hurt. If you or your family member is going to the hospital every week, something (lifestyle or mental) needs to be fixed.
7. Pay for any improvements by taking money out of the DoD. Stipulate that the DoD has to maintain current manning levels and quality of life. All money taken from their budget should be from cruft (how much does DoD spend on office supplies) or from special projects (Do we really need the JSF right after the F-22).
7a. Reduce the funding to every government agency by 2% per year until the customers start complaining. Then, analyze the complaints to see if better customer service could fix the problem. Fire assholes and slashdoters. We pay for 8 hours, fucking work them.
8. Threaten corporate shareholders with jail for withholding good drugs at low cost.
9. Mandate one special project for major companies. Wanna do business? Then you have to work on a cure for AIDS.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Very nice, although I think the list of citations is a little short. Dean Baker has been saying much the same thing for some time - but he doesn't have a nobel prize. Still I think he makes a more interesting case for much the same thing and Stiglitz ought to have cited him (among others, but I prefer Baker's writings based on clarity and style.)
I write a new edition of this essay every time the topic comes up (and it has no citations at all, which should not be interpreted as a statement that these are entirely my ideas):
Let us say, just for the sake of argument, that a method of extracting or purifying a gene, or a gene product (a protein) consists of an invention, worthy of patent, in and of itself. This is distinct from patenting the gene itself - if I can do that, I am patenting an end, and not a means to achieving that end. If I come along and purify the same gene product, by some other technique, I'm violating their patent. Crucially, I will violate their patent even I use none of their actual inventions at all! I am violating their patent because I am seeking the same end.
At first glance, this might seem similar to product patents as applied to synthetic molecules. However, in those cases the molecule itself is a unique invention. If I develop a particular technique for tending an orchard, I cannot patent trees! Patenting genes that cause diseases is a separate intellectual fallacy that deserves coverage in it's own right.
This is like patenting the act of killing germs. If a disease is caused by an abnormal (mutant) protein, than the only true cure is to fix that protein - replace it with functional protein, or remove those cells generating the harmful protein, according to the particular condition. The same argument applies to gene-products (proteins) that cause elevated risk for cancer, heart disease and the like. A patent on the gene is basically a patent on all possible cures for that condition/predilection. A gene that causes a predilection for breast cancer should be viewed as a condition in and of itself (which needs to be at least treated,) and not as some part of a particular treatment for breast cancer.
Finally, I should say our genomes, not just collectively, but individually, are the property of the human race. In a biological sense, they are the human race.
Bees are generally black and yellow, and have poisonous stingers. Individual bees, however black or yellow they may be, and poisonous their stingers may be, are all 100% bees - they all possess an equal allotment of beeness. Likewise, the quality of humanity is 100% endowed to each of us.
However, it does not arise from any of us individually. We are all human only because the entire human species exists. The genome of any individual person is not sufficient to specify the human race; the genetic diversity of your fellow human beings is part and parcel of your fundamental human identity.
The same is true, in fact, of the genetic diversity of all known living things, which are our cousins.
Many people have a visceral objection to the idea of a gene being owned. Certain of my colleagues are fond of implying that the objections of laymen arise from some degree of scientific ignorance, or a lack of appreciation for the effort that goes into doing molecular biology. I am a molecular biologist myself, fully cognizant of the hard work that is done. I understand all of that quite well, but I come to the same visceral conclusion: you cannot own that which makes us human.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Complaints about the patent system in drug development typically founder on one sticking point. Without patents, who is going to come up with the immense sums required to bring a drug from investigational status to clinical reality? One alternative, of course, is a national drug discovery enterprise, funded by tax money. The problem with that, however, is that the funds required are immense, and the risks are high. Who is going to take the blame if the product of a billion-dollar drug discovery effort fails in Phase III trials, something that happens rather frequently to pharmaceutical companies? Not to mention the risks that such an effort would turn into another pork boondoggle, with money being expended in response to political rather than medical needs.
Stiglitz's proposal offers an intriguing compromise--a system of federally funded prizes for private development of "open source" pharmaceuticals. Moreover, it could potentially coexist with the current patent system, perhaps initially focusing on areas that are underserved by the pharmaceutical industry, such as development of new antibiotics. Of course, the prizes would have to be very large to attract private development, given that the open source requirement would greatly limit the profit potential of the drugs discovered. However, the prizes could reasonably be staged--so much for successfully passing Phase I, so much for successfully passing Phase II, etc. etc.
1. If a researcher looses a monopoly on one patent, but in turn gains access to 10 million other patents - then that is a net gain for invention and for business, not a net loss. The facts bear that out. For example, how most the new drug innovation was happening in India where they don't have patents on drugs, or the less proprietary x86 architecture that took the market by storm in spite of it's design flaws.
2. Patents do not change the demand for invention and R&D, they only distort the market and cause it to center around invention controls instead of invention related services. Well, large companies, lawyers, and government are good at controlling things. Inventors are good at inventing things, so patents do really not help inventors or small lean innovators.
3. To control inventions requires physical coercion and violence, and patents are very violent. Like how they arguably held back safety devices in cars for 20 years while millions died needlessly, and like how attempts of patent enforcement in Africa have likely led to over a million unneeded AIDS related deaths. Also, DDT was banned within months of its patent running out, freon too, to make room for bigger markets. But at least the freon one can't be attributed to 50 million malaria deaths.
4. In the future, technology is likely to bring production back into the home thru 3d printers and nanotechnology. IMHO, patents will require more violence and more government micro-regulation than ever in order to be secured.
5. A side effect of the patent system is that researchers who share research and innovation between companies are punished. It creates a strong disincentive against collaboration. It forces innovators to spend orders of magnitude more on R&D and causes them and their research to be micromanaged. So patents drive up the cost of R&D by orders of magnitude, drive down quality, and then now they say "well, we need patent monopolies to recover all these costs".
6. People tend to think that having all these incompatible parts and all these incompatible interfaces on every single car, cell phone, and consumer product - is just a normal part of a free market economy. I speculate that it is not, and that patents encourage these distortions in addition to all the waste and unneeded obsolescence that goes with it.
7. People tend to think that having expensive pharmaceuticals with all sorts of strange chemical side effects is just a normal part of a free market economy. In addition they think that the shunning natural cures, herbs, and vitamins is a normal function of modern medicine and science. I speculate that it also is not, but another distortion caused by patents.
8. Patents are not property anymore than slaves on the plantation are. Just cause someone calls something a property doesn't mean that it is.
In sum, patents don't help inventors, but distort markets to work against them and even punish and isolate them. They are violent, genocidal, coercive, unproductive, inefficient, and drive down profit, quality, and compatibility across markets everywhere. The future for patents does not look promising, but rather to be one of millions of US elderly suffering from high costs and strange chemichal side effects on their medication, and one of a military police state required to enforce them as things like 3d printing and nanotechnology force the commoditization of invention.
Personally, I'd rather live in that world where I can move as high as my talent can take me, than live in a world of enforced "equality" that really means transferring money from the doers to the takers.
I certainly agree with your preferences, but we don't really live in that world. Becoming extremely rich and/or powerful usually means being born into that position, or some combination of luck and breaking the law without being caught.
All most people want is the corruption from the top removed, and a little safety net at the bottom so that a string of bad luck doesn't destroy your life.
"In medicine, patents cost lives."
Patents cost lives in more than just medicine. I remember hearing about an African country that turned down a shipment of grain because it had been genetically altered. The fact that it was genetically altered wasn't the problem. The problem was that there were patents on the alterations and the government knew that farmers would use some of the grain to raise new crops. That country chose to let their people starve rather than face the consequences of patent infringement.
Corporations don't give a shit about people. They could care less if you as an individual lived or died. You and I are nothing but prospective customers, a possible source of profit and it is only to that end they care.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
... may well consider spending some of its billions buying out critical patents?
FTA:|The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said "We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way ... You can't expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale."|
I haven't looked at the cost to bring a drug to market (from discovery to preclinical work through to NDA filing) recently, but last I saw it was in the region of $800 million US. Most big pharmas are tweaking the winning compounds they already have rather than pushing riskier candidates through the later stages towards approval. If you can play with the other enantiomer of your already approved product rather than mess with a new molecule, you do that first, assuming you own the rights :) Most of the big pharmas do R&D and spend enormous sums, but the biotechs and biopharmas still do the work on the less favored sons, hoping for a wedding or at least an invite, but as the man from Novartis indicates, it's a business fraught with peril, not many compounds make it through the regulatory authorities like the FDA, EMEA, etc. Pfizer and Lilly and the others do their due diligence and throw seed money at the little guys along with venture capitalists, but sustainability is a big ask when the percentage of compounds receiving approval is as low as it is.
Advertising for prescription drugs used to be illegal. After that was "deregulated", it grew to twice the cost of drug R&D. There is now one pharmaceutical sales rep for every four doctors in the US.
Until the 1980s, drugs developed at Government expense went into the public domain immediately. Now, pharmaceutical companies can buy rights to government-developed drugs.
Big Pharma has negotiated several special deals to extend patent lifetimes. Patents are extended by the time the FDA spends evaluating the drug. And then there's a "proprietary rights in drug testing data" thing, which means that the company which did clinical testing gets an exclusion right against generic makers which can outlast the patent. And then there's a special extension of exclusivity deal if a drug company pushes an existing drug through clinical testing for children, which can extend the patent life.
But when the patent runs out, the price goes way down. Claritin used to be over $1/tablet; now the generic version is about $0.12 each.
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." - Thomas Jefferson
Turmeric is a tropical herb grown in East India, and the powdered product made from the rhizomes of its flowers has several popular uses worldwide. Turmeric powder, which has a distinctive deep yellow color and bitter taste, is used as a dye, a cooking ingredient, and a litmus in a chemical test, and has medicinal uses as well. In the mid-1990s, this product became the subject of a patent dispute with important ramifications for international trade law. A U.S. patent on turmeric was awareded to the University of Mississippi Medical Center in 1995, specifically for the "use of turmeric in wound healing." This patent also granted them the exclusive right to sell and distribute turmeric.[1] Two years later, a complaint was filed by India's Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, which challenged the novelty of the University's "discovery," and the U.S. patent office investigated the validity of this patent. In India, where turmeric has been used medicinally for thousands of years, concerns grew about the economically and socially damaging impact of this legal "biopiracy." In 1997, the patent was revoked. But for two years the patent on turmeric had stood, although the process was non-novel and had in fact been traditionally practiced in India for thousands of years, as was eventually proven by ancient Sanskrit writings that documented turmeric's extensive and varied use throughout India's history. Many developing countries are concerned that the globalization of intellectual property rights under the WTO's TRIPs agreement, and the negative consequences it has for traditional indigenous knowledge and biodiversity.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive
property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an
individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the
moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and
the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is
that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening
mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the
moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to
have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them,
like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any
point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in
nature, be a subject of property.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
There is no evidence to support the concept that "intellectual property" patents actually encourage innovation. The candle metaphor used in the article is directed exactly at this concept. Anyone conversant with the history of science beginning with Francis Bacon and onward through the formation and growth of the Royal Societies and the other national and international scientific associations knows this. Knowledge leads to knowledge. The very REASON for peer review is to test one's data, methods, and conclusions against other knowledge. Secrecy around "intellectual property" encourages a "small pond" approach to peer review and limits the actual functionality of the scientific method and effectively intellectually isolates the very researchers attempting to benefit from the "secret." Patents, secrets, and "intellectual" property hobble any science, and will force increases in cost at the expense of money, time and efficenicy. At the other end of the scale, incidents such as the "discovery" and patentiang of Tumeric, a substance widely documented as a folk-remedy, is simple theft, pure and simple. It was cynical and can even be construed as greedy and vicious. Certainly the patent didn't support a costly research effort, nor does protect a "discovery." Ultimately the tumeric patent was struck down. One could argue that rather than the government issue patents, business should be required to rely soley on industrial secrecy to protect their "intellectual" property. This would immediately simplify many things. WIth no more patent system the demand and cost of patent lawyers vanishes over night. If an individual wishes to actually benefit from the knowledge of others through peer review, then they bite the bullet and decide whether the lost of the "exclusivity" of their "secret" is balanced by the gain of the insight of others. Each time they seek the response of the community innovation actually WILL be encouraged.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
You lost your right to say that Americans are free when you didn't butcher Dubya and string up the supreme court for imposing their own opinions on a set of election results that were not even remotely clear, and refusing to even hear the appeals of the tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters that were barred from voting just for being poor and having names that were too similar to those of a convicted criminals in other states. That you don't lynch-mob government officials that engage in gerrymandering is proof enough that you don't even care if your elections are even remotely representative. Even allowing the existence of "lobbying" (AKA bribery) is an embarassment for any nation in which it occurs. America is not free, it is not democratic, and it is by far the stupidest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Consider this: it is the only non-Muslim nation where there are actually a sizable number of people that question the value of literacy... and are willing to elect leaders that lack it.
You assume the United States is the only one with a stupid government.
And you are too ready to call people "stupid" instead of thinking.
Politicians, broadly speaking, are not stupid. The rewards which flow to a successful politician - money and power - are huge. There is therefore a lot of competition. Stupid people have no chance.
Politicians say stupid things pretty often. That's not because they believe what they're saying; it's because saying those things will get them more votes.
Politicians often pass legislation which harms the people they represent. But the majority of voters don't follow complex issues, so that doesn't affect re-electability. In most cases, the legislation is in response to some special interest. The purpose of passing it is usually to get more campaign donations. It is relatively cheap for large corporations to buy the legislation they want in this way (here's an example).
Our pols are not stupid, just unethical. But our political system seems to favor unscrupulous people.
Yes it can be true!! This is not the first time some greedy businesses from US have tried to do this, some of them even tried to patent the use of Neem tree that has been a traditional knowledge in India for thousands of years. When Indian Govt objected to a patent that was granted to USDA and WR Grace, the multinational WR Grace said that the prior use of Neem has not been documented in a scientific journal!!! Benefits of Neem tree are well documented in Indian traditional medicine known as Ayurveda and the Neem tree itself has cultural significance in many parts of India. Read about this dispute in Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neem. I am sure the same multinationals are searching the rain forests and tropics to patent the medicinal use of a tree or a plant that has been a traditional knowledge for generations.
It's interesting that a hospital or Dr. can be sued for watching a patient die and not helping but [Mistlefoot (636417)] do this everyday with no repercussions.
I wonder if this could be winnable in a US court.....probably not....
Why isn't this murder? Watching someone die a slow painful death when you could keep them alive is certainly not something that this country claims is humane.
What prevents you from drawing your checkbook and paying for the fucking drugs? How are you better than the big pharmas? They have developped drugs and made something possible : now ANYBODY (the patient, the govt, any charity, even you...) can buy the drugs for the patients. What have YOU done? You're blasting the big pharmas for not doing enough.
You're such a hero. It's a pity the world is not 100% populated by your type. Nobody would do anything, but everybody would blame the others for not doing enough.
It would be like heaven on earth, wouldn't it?
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
There is'nt, never has been, and never will be a Nobel prize in economics.
The award he was presented with was "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It was established in 1968, and not intended to celebrate the memory of Alfred Nobel as the name suggests, but the three hundredth birhtday of the Swedish central bank.
Alfred Nobel only mentions prizes in five categories in his last will and testament: "Literature", "Physiologi or Medicin", "Physics", "Chemistry" and "Champions of peace", and these real Nobel prizes have been awarded since 1901.
An excerpt from the testament
I think you missed the intent of the question. He/she knows its not legally defined as murder, the author wants to know why it is not. What is the moral and ethical culpability of a person who has the means to save someone's life without risking their own or endangering others?
If a person walks by a kiddie pool and sees a newborn in the process of drowning and chooses not to do anything, is that person not morally responsible for the death of that person? And if so, why don't we classify it as murder? Basic legal maxims include the belief that a person is responsible for the consequences of his actions if he is aware of what the outcome of his actions is highly likely to be and chooses to proceed with those actions. So why not include the idea of a person being culpable for the highly predictable consequences of his/her inactions? In the hypothetical, should the person who knowingly left the newborn to die be punished by society for his inaction? And if not, why? Is not the point of law to punish morally and ethically wrong actions that damage society?
Supposedly, the dems will be pushing similar laws that Colorado just enacted (I found it interesting that a republican leaning paper feels that brakes on corrupt congressmen is not needed). If so, then it will help to stop the corruption. Of course, I suspect that lopeholes will be left, but we will see.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I was in this industry for 25 years and my father for 25 years before me. I practised in Southern Africa during this period and was an elected representative on the national body of the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa (PSSA). I can speak on the subject with some authority because I know the background of what it is like for 3rd World economies. Pharmaceutical Companies (PC's) apply differential pricing depending on where they are operating. eg identical medicines are 14% more expensive in the USA than they are in Europe. The major PC's are all in the top 20% of the top 100 listings on the stock exchanges of the world. They give returns of twice as much as their comparative listed companies. Most provide annual returns of over 20% compared to their non-pharmaceutical rivals 10%. An example of the type of tactics they use their patents for could be seen a few years ago in South Africa. The South African pharmaceutical market is divided into 2 categories - State and private sector. The state buys all their medicine on tender. In order to obtain tenders the companies supply at stupid prices and then load the loss on the private sector. Examples shown indicated that some medicines were 1000% more expensive than the tender price. This process led to enormous pressure in the private sector. Over a period of 20 years (1980 - 2000) the component of medicine spend in the total health spend rose from 15% to 34%. The PSSA advocated the importation of pharmaceuticals from the EU or India where they some 30% and 100% cheaper respectively. The Dept of Health formalised this in amendments to the regulations in 2000. They even inspected factories in India and licenced them for supply to South Africa. The Pharmaceutical Industry immediately drew the attention of the Government to their patent rights. The US State Dept was called in to assist. I was a speaker on a panel discussing this legislation in 1998 and seated next to me was this representative from the US Embassy. The threat was made at this discussion that should this legislation be invoked South Afica would be transgressing International Patent Law and the US government would advocate their exclusion from international trade rights. The PC's do not provide anything to their host countries except employment. They utilise a system of transfer pricing for their production. How this works is that the local company calculates the production volumes of a given medicine and the local cost of production. Their parent company then calculates the profit they wish to make and this then becomes the retail price. The local company is then sold the production materials from the parent company. The invoice value is the retail price less the production cost. This in real terms that that they are effectively making no profit in the country of production and therefore pay no tax. This is technically illegal in most countries but is almost impossible to provce since they hold the patent rights on the product and no one can prove the real cost of the product. The last point is that there is very little original research going on currently. Most "new" medicines are computer modelled clones of existing molecules. Research is going on in many State funded institutions and the PC's often buy the intellectual rights or are involved in providing some funding of this research. The issue of the relationship between what they spend R&D and marketing is raised because whenever they are questioned about the high prices they are charging they always point to how much they have to spend on R&D. The other interesting facet about their pricing is how much they charge for "cosmetic" medicine eg treatments for acne or fertility agents. This is a wicked industry and they have great plans and will strangle health care globally.