Slashdot Log In
Nobel Laureate Attacks Medical Intellectual Property
Journal written by nbauman (624611) and posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Dec 25, 2006 08:41 PM
from the corporate-bottom-line-is-red dept.
from the corporate-bottom-line-is-red dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:4, Informative)
click [ornl.gov]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 su
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
90% of the plants they have patented they have no more (or less) rights to than you or I and they have done nothing to improve or modify them.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The government is not at all stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [opensecrets.org]).
Our pols are not stupid, just unethical. But our political system seems to favor unscrupulous people.
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:and you? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Speaking Out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah and the guy who came up with the medical patent didn't learn everything he knew from other people, then get a shitload of government funding to do his research. oh wait, yes he did.
Parent
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note: that was a reduction to absurdity, not an endorsement of either patents in general, or the patents described. Simmer down.)
I haven't read the article, but if the excepted parts are to be taken seriously -- and I think they are -- the entire argument is rather sophomoric. Pointing to an example of prohibiting Indians to use a traditional remedy because of patents would be a textbook example of an invalid patent (on grounds of prior art). That would show the problems with "a stupid application of medical patents" not that "medical patents as such, take lives".
The other "point" is about drug companies spending more on marketing than research, but what exactly is this supposed to prove (and people do bring it up a lot)? Is the point that if you don't follow some liberal's wet dream about how you're supposed to spend your money, your patent is somehow less worthy?
Yeah, let's start enforcing laws based on our sympathies with the litigants -- banana republic in no time!
Or, presumably, this fact is brought up to somehow imply that a drug company could costlessly redirect money from marketing to research? That won't work either. If the drug became instant knowledge to everyone who might want it, drug companies wouldn't market so much to begin with. In reality, you have to overcome some very steep prejudices of a very protected class of doctors to get them to do it a better way. This means marketing.
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: unlike many people, I freely admit that I simply don't know whether patents are good or bad. However, I do know that we'll never know the answer if people keep muddying up the debate with these misleading claims.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The more things change ... (Score:4, Informative)
eminent domain (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Interesting comparision... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:eminent domain (Score:5, Informative)
That said, there's no need to take away their patents, by eminent domain or otherwise - you can force Compulsory Licensing [wikipedia.org] on them. There's ample precedent for this. The present system of compulsory licensing is simply inadequate to bring, for example, AIDS cocktails into the affordable range for poor Africans, so it needs to be strengthened.
Obviously, strengthening compulsory licensing of patents would cut into the profits of the pharmaceutical companies (duh), so they're going to fight it tooth and nail; but it's the simplest most conservative solution to the underlying problem.
I, myself, think that a better solution would be to stop offering patents on drugs at all (as it is basically an immoral practice, as TFA points out) and to provide, not "prizes", but "grants" that move beyond basic biology research (presently funded by grants) and into drug discovery. Elementary math indicates that the cost savings would be huge.
The government bureaucracy might grow somewhat, although doing a good job of awarding patents (which they don't do) probably wouldn't be that much less bureaucracy than doing a good job of administering drug discovery grants - but the equally distasteful private bureaucracies that currently parasitize themselves off of government graft would atrophy - which any real libertarian (as opposed to someone who claims a libertarian ideology in order to justify their slavish support for the uber-rich) would have to support.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:eminent domain (Score:4, Interesting)
Throw into the mix all the money the drug companies have given to politicians [opensecrets.org] to help maintain the status quo and you begin to see how difficult it is to make changes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:eminent domain (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are not property, and should not be considered as such.
The correct solution here is to change the patent law to make it no longer cover drugs. That will solve the problem very simply.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatives to Intellectual Property (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let the free market decide.
We need a large-scale system where either a buyer or a creator could publicly propose a "prize" for any new creation of their specification. Interested buyers could put whatever it was personally worth to them into an escrow account and interested creators could b
Recycled post (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
An alternative (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen some extremely innovative research coming out of pharma. Genuine cures are inherently hard to find, and it doesn't matter who is doing the development. You don't see many cures coming out of academic research, either. Perhaps gene therapy or stem cell the
Some thoughts about patents (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Patents kill in a lot of sectors... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 Gates Foundation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Way too much marketing cost (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Thomas Jefferson said it best... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Medical Industry (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the vast majority of health problems in the US are caused by lifestyle. Not everyone who has lung cancer smokes. However, most of them do. No everyone with heart disease eats fatty food. Most of them do.
Not all diabetes can be cured with exercise and diet. However, if you are overweight and have a bad diet, then that should be addressed before a doc whips out his prescription pad.
>>I love to walk and often walk several miles a day
You could walk all day long and
Re:Medical Industry (Score:4, Insightful)
[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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Combine 5 & 6: everyone is covered but everyone must get regular checkups. Hypochondriacs are mental cases and should be treated as such.
#5a; If you work in the USA you pay th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there. i fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no good argument (Score:3, Insightful)