Where I first courted Linda
and made Murphy's acquaintance
As some of you know, before I became a geologist I studied
economics. In fact, I graduated from
Stanford saddled with that dreadful degree. I had intended to go on to law
school, and eventually into politics. At
the time I was a fervent Taft Republican; I thought Eisenhower was a dangerous
radical. Good thing I ditched law school.
Anyway, a NYTimes article sent me by Dick Ingwall proves
that even economists can be useful.
Here is the article:
The lead author is perhaps not your typical economist. She is a MacArthur “genius” grant recipient
and is on the faculty of MIT. (She had
two co-authors, no doubt worthy guys but perhaps lacking such sparkling
credentials.) Her name is Heidi Williams.
It appears that Williams et al have studied our friend Big
Pharma, They asked the following question: Why do (cancer) drugs brought newly
to market consist dominantly of stuff to fight late-stage disease (that is, buy
the patient a few more months)? In
contrast, it appears, concoctions that may affect early-stage disease (and
maybe thus affect a cure), or prevent the disease altogether, are relatively
rare. Why?
It might not surprise you too much to learn that this involves money.
But it MAY surprise you to learn that it’s not all
attributable to capitalist greed.
Williams et al start from the assumption that drug companies have to
make money. (They are economists,
right?) Here, then, is the problem, in
one oversimplified (by me) nutshell.
Suppose you are Merck, or Pfizer, or even some little start-up in
downtown Seattle. You work diligently for many months - probably years - to develop some
sort of probably complex biochemical substance that you think might be useful against cancer. The first thing you do is patent your
discovery. This gives you 20 years
before two smart guys, a scientist and a chemical engineer in Moldova, in cahoots with a
venture capitalist in NY, set up a plant that can turn out your stuff for next to
nothing. But this doesn't give you a 20-year head start; oh, no. To
sell your stuff, of course, you must obtain FDA approval. As you know, a clinical trial will be required. So, think about it: To get robust statistical results for a drug
intended to extend life for only a few months may only require a matter of a few years,
whereas if your drug is intended to prolong life indefinitely the trial
conceivably might require decades. Drug development and testing can cost
billions. Imagine how your stockholders would greet the
news that your drug is ready for the clinic, but that the guys in Moldova will
bgine selling their version in Walmart next Monday.
One obvious remedy for this, mentioned in the article, is to commence
the patent period only after FDA approval.
This has complications, of course.
Other remedies also are discussed but, frankly, I am getting tired of
typing exclusively with my right forefinger* – so read the article yourself. The Comments also are useful.
*Read my last blog to understand this statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment