corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14393

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Cookson C.
Patent wars hit life sciences, says study
The Financial Times 2008 Sep 24
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdff91e6-89d0-11dd-8371-0000779fd18c.html


Full text:

The drive to accumulate and defend patents is stifling innovation, particularly in biotechnology and healthcare, according to a Canadian-led international study.

Richard Gold, a law professor at McGill University in Montreal who chairs the International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property, presented the study’s findings in London yesterday, and called for a more collaborative and trusting approach in the life sciences.

“The old [intellectual property] approach of the biotechnology community has failed to deliver on its potential to address disease and hunger in both developing and industrialised nations. We need to do better, and the [information technology] world has shown us part of the solution,” said Prof Gold.

“Look at the way that change has swept through the IT world and brought benefits to millions.”

The group did not oppose the principle of patent protection for discoveries. It was concerned at the confrontational way in which companies and universities amassed and defended as many patents as possible.

Case studies showed that aggressive patenting was counterproductive. One example concerned controversial patents awarded to Myriad Genetics, a Utah-based company, for breast cancer genes. If the company and opponents in European and North American public health services had taken a less confrontational attitude, it was suggested, both sides would have benefited.

Prof Gold said reform of the world’s intellectual property laws to encourage collaboration would not be realistic. Governments could make more use of existing provisions to enforce licensing and “march-in rights” when patent holders were behaving unreasonably, but change would be most effective if it came from the life sciences industry itself.

Attitudes were beginning to change, particularly in pharmaceutical companies. “I think the leadership is more likely to come from the pharmaceutical than the biotechnology industry,” he said. “I have talked to biotech executives who say the message we are giving is the right one, but [they] cannot afford to say so openly.”

The expert group backed the idea of more public-private partnerships to share risks during early stages of research, and more patent pooling during the later stages of development and commercialisation.

“The IT industry does it better because IT encountered the limitations of the old business model sooner,” he added. “You can see it in the rise of a sustainable open source movement and in the way companies like IBM changed their attitude and now license out IP quite liberally.”

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909