Nobel Laureate Attacks Medical Intellectual Property 449
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.'"
Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting comparision... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Interesting comparision... (Score:2, Insightful)
the pharmaceutical company gives larger bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions.
Re:So now you know (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 safety net at the bottom so that a string of bad luck doesn't destroy your life.
Re:Medical Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
there. i fixed that for you.
Re:Medical Industry (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 still be out of shape. Every adult needs 45+ minutes of 80% max heart rate exercise 5+ days a week. Walking will rarely get you above 60% MHR. That's fine for losing weight, but no good for overall fitness.
Look at the recommendations for body composition. A 6' male should weigh no more than 170lbs. At 190lbs he would be obese. At what, 210, he'd be morbidly obese. How many 6' males do you know who weigh 170? 190? 210? I'm willing to bet that number ramps up exponentially. Where do you think you fit in?
Once weight and diet are analyzed and fixed, then, and only then, should a doctor prescribe a drug. Too many people take the drug and never fix the problem.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:eminent domain (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi, my name is Lizzy Faire (Score:2, Insightful)
Your right to live should depend entirely on how much money you have.
[neo con parody off]
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (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.
The ROI for R&D ain't what it used to be... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:eminent domain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:eminent domain (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:4, 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.
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.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An alternative (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 therapy will end up leading to cures, but the technology isn't there yet. And there is a lot of work on both of these technologies coming out of both industrial and academic labs.
So if the government spent, say, a billion dollars developing a new drug, and the drug they produced ended up doing more harm to be good and had to be abandoned, you think the public and the press would simply say "Them's the breaks?" No congressional investigations, no 20:20 hindsight political scandal over whether Congressman so-and-so supported the project because the lab was in his district? None of the sort of stuff that routinely happens if the government invests a billion dollars into building a fighter plane that doesn't fly?
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.
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.
Re:Medical Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alternatives to Intellectual Property (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to say that this or a similar system couldn't work, but this is a serious problem that would need to be addressed.
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
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:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (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:eminent domain (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no good argument (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Not far off the mark (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
and you? (Score:3, 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.
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?
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.
Re:and you? (Score:3, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree. I think the very concept of profit is as old as trade and possibly as old as property. Cavemen were jealously protecting the secret of fire against other tribes, as it gave them a competitive advantage.
The rate of human discoveries has skyrocketed in recent times, while patents were increasingly used. Of course, correlation does not mean causation. Yet the case against patents is far from proven.
I'm sorry if I sounded insensitive or exceedingly siding with big pharmas. I agree with most people that overly broad patents should not be granted. Patents on a gene for instance, or patents on a given organism (your Amazonian flower) with no indication of any specific application. But the
Bringing a new drug to the market takes 10 years and $1Bn. Who's gonna take that kind of risk if they're not allowed to profit in case of success? Big pharma are evil if/when they stifle innovation. Not when they do their job : develop and SELL drugs.
Why should everyone be allowed to make a profit : carmakers, airlines, software vendors, restaurants, pet grooming shops, stock brokers, insurance salesmen, TV evangelists... EXCEPT those who invent life-saving drugs?
If you crave for a world where everyone can access the same drugs, regardless of their wealth, you can :
1. lobby your government and fellow citizens so that a decent health care system is instituted;
2. start a charity that focuses on providing drugs to the poor (or just give to such a charity);
3. become a biochemist and start your own drug discovery company.
I guess my position on this stuff can be summarized in 2 quick points:
1. I don't think execs at big pharmas are more or less evil than in other industries.
2. Careful what you do with the patent system, it's worked not so bad so far.
Re:and you? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is this evidence, pray tell? There is much evidence to the contrary and solid economic and financial theory to show the flaw in this kind of lazy thinking.
WTF? Even a perfect charity can't design and obtain approval today for a drug that is only applicable to one person or a very narrow range of people. It's simply not economically viable -- it would make the cost of even the most expensive prescriptions look downright dirt cheap. Even if it were feasible with some huge technological leaps, it's pretty much impossible to obtain regulatory approval with this kind of heavily tailored drug (it requires a COMPLETELY different method of testing).
Even if one accepts your belief that most of their energies are spent on useless medicines (e.g., "penis pills"), why is the onus on them, any more than it is on YOU, to develop "cures"? If they renamed themselves to "impotency drug companies" or simply entered, say, the software business would they be less culpable? Why do you believe they're mututally exclusive? Why can't for-profit companies do things for-profit while, at the same time, allowing do-gooders to do good in markets that they simply don't operate in? And, how, pray-tell, do the drug companies have so much power over the life of your friend if they're merely "treating symptoms"?
I am not the person you are responding to. However, I do know of what I speak. I worked for years in the medical devices business; I'm an entrepreneur; I've worked closely with the drug industry; and I'm involved with the business of actually funding bio-tech startups (and, fyi, "they" actually are interested in cures)...to name a few of my qualifications. Your pie in the sky ideas do not match with the scientific, regulatory, and basic financial hurdles involved with developing drugs.
Re:Patented Breast Cancer Genes? (Score:3, Insightful)
They patented them because they could and because no one had.
The responsibility for this (horrendous act, in my opinion) it two-fold:
1. Monsanto for trying to steal and control that which rightly belongs to all.
2. The governments (U.S. and Canada, at least, probably more) for having such a stupid system of patents in the first place.