Friday , February 21 2020
Home / Real-World Economics Review / We can develop new drugs without patent monopolies # 54,217

We can develop new drugs without patent monopolies # 54,217

Summary:
From Dean Baker It is often said that intellectuals have a hard time dealing with new ideas. This is perhaps nowhere better demonstrated with the fixation with patent monopolies as the primary mechanism for financing the development of new drugs. Bloomberg gave us a beautiful example of this narrow mindedness with a column from Max Nisen on the possibility that China may require the compulsory licensing of a patent on a drug developed by Gilead, in order to produce a treatment for the Coronavirus. A compulsory license means that sacrificing the monopoly Gilead had expected, which means it will only get a small fraction of the revenue it might have otherwise anticipated. Nisen is concerned that this lost revenue will reduce expected profit in the future, meaning that companies like

Topics:
Dean Baker considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Lars Syll writes We need a ‘Fridays for Keynesianism’ movement!

Editor writes Wealth has always been about power

Asad Zaman writes Subjectivity concealed in index numbers

Philip Pilkington writes New Review of My Book

from Dean Baker

It is often said that intellectuals have a hard time dealing with new ideas. This is perhaps nowhere better demonstrated with the fixation with patent monopolies as the primary mechanism for financing the development of new drugs.

Bloomberg gave us a beautiful example of this narrow mindedness with a column from Max Nisen on the possibility that China may require the compulsory licensing of a patent on a drug developed by Gilead, in order to produce a treatment for the Coronavirus. A compulsory license means that sacrificing the monopoly Gilead had expected, which means it will only get a small fraction of the revenue it might have otherwise anticipated. Nisen is concerned that this lost revenue will reduce expected profit in the future, meaning that companies like Gilead would have much less incentive in developing cures for epidemics like the Coronavirus.

While drug companies do operate to make a profit, the part of the story that Nisen misses is that the profit does not have to be gained through patent monopolies. Suppose that the U.S. and other governments put up research funding, which private corporations like Gilead could bid on based on their expertise and track record. In this case, a condition of the research is that all patents would be in the public domain (the companies were already paid for their work) and all results would be fully public as soon as practical.

If anyone was seriously concerned about combating epidemics like the Coronavirus, this would seem to be the best route to go. We should want researchers all around the world to be sharing results and in other ways cooperating to solve a common problem. Advanced funding would encourage this sort of cooperation as opposed to the patent system, which encourages researchers to squirrel away findings so as not to give an edge to competitors.

That fact, and the other benefits should be obvious to anyone who writes on this issue, but as we know, intellectuals have a hard time dealing with new ideas.

Dean Baker
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *