Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Glaxo Open Sources Malaria Drug Search Data

Posted by samzenpus on from the free-as-a-mosquito dept.

smellsofbikes writes "GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second-largest pharmaceutical company, is putting thousands of possible malaria-treating drugs into the public domain in a move that the Wall Street Journal calls a 'Linux approach' to pharmaceutical screening. Andrew Witty, who is described as the boss of GSK, says the company thinks it is 'imperative to earn the trust of society, not just by meeting expectations but by exceeding them.' Of course, synthesis or discovery of new chemicals is cheap compared to efficacy and qualification studies, but this is a refreshing change from not handing out any information until after everything is patented."

11 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Start of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope, sincerely, that this is the start of more collaborative efforts on the part of drug companies. We're quick to bash them but I believe we should applaud this effort.

    1. Re:Start of something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'll be cautiously, quietly applauding from a far corner, until I can figure out what exactly their ulterior motives are. They want my trust, and this is a good first step, but boy-oh-boy do they have an uphill battle before them.

    2. Re:Start of something by shipbrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree, we should take the facts and be thankful. Whatever their true motives, we do not know (perhaps they just don't think they'll ever profit from malaria drugs, etc). We'll see how many negative comments regarding this are posted... But before that happens, I'd advise readers to always be skeptical, but never cynical.

    3. Re:Start of something by grcumb · · Score: 3, Informative

      (perhaps they just don't think they'll ever profit from malaria drugs, etc)

      And there you have it. Most of the countries where Malaria is prevalent are not rich countries. However, most people have heard the word Malaria and, even if they don't know what it is or how you get it, this announcement sounds impressive to them. Dengue Fever is also common in many of the areas of the world where Malaria is but they aren't releasing that research. Why? Because no one has heard of it so it's not an effective PR stunt.

      The other reason for not releasing research on Dengue is that there is currently no treatment available whatsoever (unless you count liquids and Panadol to reduce the fever).

      Being the first company to provide a viable treatment is a very attractive prospect. I know this because I just got over a bout of Dengue a couple of months ago, and I would have paid really good money for a treatment. In fact, when I was waiting for my blood test results, I quietly prayed that I had malaria, because although it's a bitch, with treatment it's over quickly. Dengue just has to run its course.

      So yes: No profit from malaria? Open source it. Big profit from Dengue? Keep your cards to your chest.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    4. Re:Start of something by PDoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking from the inside of a large pharma company, I can tell you that there is currently *a lot* of interest in Dengue. Several of the biggest drug-companies are beginning programmes aimed at Dengue, and funding bodies are proposing collaborative efforts. It's a (very) long way from a viable treatment, but the people at the top can see the money now... which helps.

      --
      Give a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)
  2. Linux approach? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh to be a fly on the wall when RMS reads that.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  3. Re:Old News by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Outside of the pharmaceutical world, this is still better than nothing.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Drug leads are cheap. this profits glaxo by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Drug leads are cheap compared to developing a drug. A friend worked at a drug lead company. They got bought by a big pharma. Within 2 years they had produced more drug leads than the pharma could validate in the next decade. So the pharma sold off the company.

    Glaxco is no doubt saturated with drug leads too. According to Merk is takes about 400 million dollars to walk one drug all the way through clinical trials. So there's a perpetual winnowing process at every stage with plenty of candidates to step in when an advanced compound is eliminated from further study.

    If you sell your drug lead company who do you think buys it? the competition. SO it's not like open sourcing something gives your competition something they could not get otherwise.

    Instead it just makes everything more efficient. The only reason for them to sit on those compounds would be if they simply wanted to prevent other from making them out of fear they might compete with their own,but having no intention of perusing them. Which would be pretty shitty business. It does happen of course (Monsanto is often accused of this.).

    So Glaxo is being brave and doing the right thing. But it's not costing them anything except possibly competition if one of those abandoned leads turns out to be the one.

    Now here' the twist:
    Ironically, by opening it up they maybe doing more to supress this compound than if they had kept quiet. The reason is, it's now unpatentable. What other company would invest in it?

    Thus short of government development of these. opening it up kills it's further development more effectively than saying nothing.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  5. Already published last week in Nature by ChefJoe · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09107.html The paper was already published last week in Nature. There was another paper by Guiguemde and Kip Guy in the same issue that my lab helped with. The problem is that antimalarial drugs need to be affordable for millions of people to take daily in places where people live off less than $1/day. Things like Coartem and even artemisinin combination pills cost too much for most of the countries that need them, due to patents and safe manufacturing facilities or even just raw materials. Luckily, malaria is getting special recognition and that helps a lot with widely dispensing every tool available to combat the parasite.

  6. Taking it with a big grain of salt by 2Bits · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm taking it with a big grain of salt. The article only said that Glaxo would publish information of chemical compounds that have potential to act against the parasite that causes malaria , it didn't say that those are real final drugs that a third-world pharmaceutical factory can take to produce tablets. As anyone in the drug research would know (I'm only a programmer), in order to discover a cure, researchers generate thousands, or even millions, of chemical compounds to study. The majority of them are not useful for anything. They are not publishing information about confirmed hits.

    The other thing I'm questioning is the patents. It just said the patents are waived for studying, it didn't say about manufacturing and marketing. What if one of the compound published turned out to be a hit, and Glaxo had patented it. Can others still use it without royalties? What about the IP of any derivatives?

    Still a lot of questions to be answered.

  7. Thankful my left boot! by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, we should take the facts and be thankful.

    Oh thank you sir. I'm so greatful sir. Only sir do you think sir that you might find it in your heart sir to not lock up my own genome sir? I was hoping that we who share the genome sir would be able to use it to fight disease sir along with all those other drugs sir that you filed for first sir but you see sir if you lock it up sir many of us will die sir. May I lick your boot now sir?

    But seriously, WHY should I be thankful to companies who are behaving badly and manipulating the law so as to maximise their own profits despite the death and suffering it causes, just because they released some small subset of the data? Are you mad? If I am mugged and beaten up should I be thankful that my attacker only laid the boot in 4 times instead of 5?

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer