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.'"
...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.
How can you patent something that is a 'naturally' (using that term loosely) occurring genetic abnormality?
click
Things haven't changed all that much since the days of theChamberlen family.
In this case, the specific sequences connected to the disease was not common knowledge beforehand. In addition, you have to come up with relevant primers to amplify the relevant sequence in a specific, yet reproducible, manner to aid detection. I don't think anyone has really tried to challenge the exact scope of the patent, as it might be possible to circumvent it by changing the method or even trying to purify and detect the protein product instead. (However, that would NOT be a trivial thing to do, much harder than the current genetic test.)
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.
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.
Oh, how I wish I could get rid of my Type II diabetes just by getting more exercise. I love to walk and often walk several miles a day, but I still have to take my pill morning and night. Part of Type II diabetes is resistance to insulin, so that even if you have what would normally be enough, you still have blood sugar trouble. I hope that someday, preferably soon, you can learn from personal experience that a treadmill isn't a cure for diabetes.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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.
You assume the United States is the only one with a stupid government.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"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!
You'll never see a patent claim written for "an anomaly." No one wants to patent a gene that causes a disease - regardless of whether the anomaly is naturally or artificially induced.
What you will see are patent claims for new inventions that rely on the discovery of such an anomaly and its effects. Depending on what the anomaly does and how you want to treat it, here are some sample claims for such inventions:
Similarly, no one can patent "turmeric." Last I checked, "turmeric" isn't novel, as any Durkee's spice catalog from the 1960's or so will indicate. But a company might discover that turmeric has a previously unknown therapeutic property, and may patent the use of turmeric for that purpose.
Sorry, folks - the patent system is rarely as insane as extremists make it out to be.
- David Stein
Ask Monsanto. They have patents on over 11,000 crops, only about 10% of which are genetically modified. The rest are natural varieties, just as God / Nature created them.
Of course, that could be because everyone that had anything to do with that aspect of the government at that time was a former Monsanto or former Monsanto subsidiary executive (for instance, John Asscroft, former Attorney General).
When you "own" the government, in time you own everything else, too.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
When you ask? When money is less important than someone else's life. As individuals, we may be 'good' but collectively, voting with dollars (and expecting return on investments in our retirement accounts), we are 'evil'.
Maybe because Article I, section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors for their respective "writings and discoveries".
It's interesting that a hospital or Dr. can be sued for watching a patient die and not helping but Pharmaceuticals 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.
Because in the United States corporations with lobbyists get the spoils.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Its one of the failutes of capitalism- the market is very good at forcing competitive markets to be efficient, but its utterly incapable of making decisions where money is not the only determiner. Thats where government is supposed to step in and fix things. Unfortunately, our current government is so corrupt that it plays ball with the corporations rather than fixes things.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Were it true that the USAn's were under tyrrany, I'd not be able to speak out against my government, nor the corporations who presently have our freedom in a stranglehold.
But I can. And I do. And so does Mr. Stiglitz.
And Joe Stiglitz is a brilliant man. I set up for a talk of his at the Univeristy of Pennsylvania - he was railing aginst the present design of the insurance infrastructure in the US. Meanwhile, where most intellectuals are fine with identifying problems with a system, he talked out an all-out solution.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
[In an exam room] Doctor: "Mrs. Johnson, I'd love to put you on a statin to lower your blood cholesterol levels and a beta-blocker for your chronic chest pain and high blood pressure, BUT random-smacktard1337 on slashdot thinks you need to get your fatass to the gym and stop stuffing your face first. So, get to it and check back with me when you're HEALTHY!"
Doctor: "What? It's not that simple? Well, that's not MY problem, now is it?"
...
Doctor: 'What will you do in the time between your miraculous transformation from an out-of-shape slob into a disciplined, world-class athlete?' How should do I know?! I only treat knowledgeable, motivated patients; not the vast majority of people--NOW GET OUT OF MY OFFICE!"
....
Doctor: "Hmmph... the nerve of some people...."
[/sarcasm] All kidding aside, it's quite clear that you have never spent a minute in a real-life clinical setting. Is there a place for preventative medicine? Of course. Could preventative medicine and proper lifestyles have prevented most incidents of type-II diabetes. In all likelihood, yes--but what do you do with people who have diabetes NOW? And what if they CAN'T exercise like they should? (You know, believe it or not, some people have more than one disease--go figure.) And even if they aren't compliant and don't exercise, what harm is there is there in doing what YOU (as a health-care provider) CAN do to help? Aren't lazy or [Insert Flaw Here] people entitled to medical care too?
Lastly, I think you're being quite flippant about the effects of diabetes when you associate it with benign diseases like Erectile Dysfunction. I'm positive if you asked the staff of any ward unit at any hospital across the country to tell you about patients who have lost life or limb as a direct or indirect result of diabetes, you would find that between them they could tell you about HUNDREDS of cases.
-Grym
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
I choose to disagree with this until someone gives me some numbers on this that support the contrary. It seems like FUD designed to tie us to the notion of IP. I don't buy it because if we take the RIAA, for example, and hold them up to this lens of "needing" them so that the music industry will continue to be profitable and produce music, we ought to all see rather clearly that this is not the case. The only thing the RIAA does for the music industry is put distributors on a pedestal for distributing media that they don't even generate. That's exactly contrary to the original reason for IP, or rather, patents and copyright.
If we look back in time to the printing press we see that copyrights were granted to protect content producers from content distributors. This was done so as to not discourage content producers because their work could be ripped off so easily. If we look at how the IP laws are abused these days we can see that, more often than not, the distributors are using the IP laws to inappropriately create monopolistic distribution channels. Which is just a complicated way of saying they get to control the entire supply, thus artificially inflating demand (prices) beyond what it ought to be.
On another note, TFA proposes an alternative to the patent system for drug research: the prize system. Off-hand, this seems feasible and proper given our role in the global society. It also seems similar to the original intent of the patent/copyright IP systems, where creators of IP are rewarded and distributors just distribute.
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.
You must be 12 years old. The world is populated by people who cant afford anything. The global distribution of wealth is so unequal, 10 percent of the population (mainly here in the "west") owns 85 percent of the worlds assets. So for pretty much 90 percent of the global population, any kind of advanced treatment is inaccessible. Moreover, even the very rich can be financially devastated through a medical issue in the family. I know a texan family myself - oil money - that were rendered broke due to the son of the family suffering a heart attack. He was brough back from the brink of death, massive braindamage, required an insane amount of money to keep alive, and when the money ran out, he died.
Big Pharma is seriously fucked up - everywhere you look, there is evidence that they are not interested in curing disease, only treating symptoms - you make more money that way. everywhere you look, there is evidence they are not interested in making people better, only in making more money. Cancer, for example, is really not an interesting marketplace for big pharma, because most cancers are rather "personalised" - i.e. successful treatment depends on the genetic makeup of the sick individual, so pharma doesn't really look into that, they prefer blanket chemo because that has a higher return on investment.
you are a dick, and you really have no idea what you are talking about.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
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.