5 ms·

> “Even something that is in the fundamental research space, that’s absolutely not classified, has an intrinsic value,” says Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy di

> “Even something that is in the fundamental research space, that’s absolutely not classified, has an intrinsic value,” says Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy director of the NIH, explaining his approach. “This pre-patented material is the antecedent to creating intellectual property. In essence, what you’re doing is stealing other people’s ideas.” Why are the words "patent" and "intellectual property" coming out of the mouth of someone at the NIH? Everything they do should be a public good.

rdiddly 7y ago
I love the word "pre-patented" (i.e. not patented). Totally reminds me of pre-crime. Nationalistic mumbo-jumbo aside, the patent discussion makes it obvious what the real motivations are: it's just another money-grab. "That publicly-funded research is supposed to benefit a small cadre of American pharma rentiers at everyone's expense, not Chinese ones!"
- Barrin92 7y ago
  calling basic cancer research a pre-patent sounds like calling the laws of physics "pre-IP". What's next, arrest Chinese physicists for smuggling astronomical data out of the US? This American witch-hunt is becoming increasingly ridiculous.
AlexB138 7y ago
Public to whom? The citizens of the country funding the research, or to those of a country that steals the result?
ancorevard 7y ago
US tax payers is fronting $28 billion a year for NIH research. There is a lot of IP coming out of that that belongs to them, and not the Chinese Communist Party. There is such a thing as licensing agreements. Again, there are many successful scientific collaborations between US and China so don't be surprised that among some of these scientists there are some with bad characters tempted to share confidential information.
- sct202 7y ago
  Even when the NIH funds the research, the resulting drugs/procedures/patents are rarely owned by the Federal Government anymore because of the Bayh-Dole Act.
  - ancorevard 7y ago
    Unfortunately there is not a clear segmentation here between what NIH funds and what ultimately becomes the product available on the market. NIH often fund basic research, while others pick that up and attempt to make a drug out of it. This is super simplifying it, but it's a complex process with lots of organizations and many funding sources. In addition to public funding of NIH research, it takes a commercial company (pharma) well beyond $1 billion to get one successful drug on the market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development
- vkou 7y ago
  The discoverer of insulin, Frederick Banting, 'sold' his patent for one dollar, to make that life-saving substance available to all. And yet, somehow, US pharma companies are overcharging diabetics to the tune of thousands of dollars a year for access to a 96-year-old drug. I'm sure those same pharma companies can figure out how to fleece the public in the distribution of any cancer cures that come out of China.
- woah 7y ago
  Why are the taxpayers funding confidential research? If that is going on, then we’ve found the real problem. I’m ok paying for health research that will benefit me and everyone else. I’m not ok funding secret research that some mid level beaurocrat will turn into an IP money grab as soon as they step through the revolving door to the private sector.
  - laf21 7y ago
    I believe all biomedical research conducted at the NIH is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so I'm not sure confidential is the best term here.
gervase 7y ago
> Everything they do should be a public good. It seems the main disagreement is on how to define public in this context. Should it be for the good of humanity, or the good of the United States? And, if it's the latter, how can that restriction be enforced?
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  It's even more ridiculous, from the same article: >Since 2010 the NIH itself has offered about $5 million a year in special grants for U.S.-China collaborations, with 20% going to cancer research, and a counterpart in China has pitched in an additional $3 million a year. So ... if we compare average living standards, China seems to be investing more
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    You know what's ridiculous? That we are giving a single cent for US-China collaborations. That $5M should be going to US researchers only.
sjg007 7y ago
I agree and it’s actually the Universities who patent the work, not the NIH.. also it’s not like China would respect the intellectual property anyway... I mean that’s the other side of the argument. Maybe this is a scheme to get the China to start respecting IP.. unfortunately the side effect will be pushing research into China when their most talented won’t work in the USA. It also is pretty clear in the article that the FBI doesn’t understand cancer research.
aheilbut 7y ago
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act and even intramural NIH inventions get patented and belong to the government
cwkoss 7y ago
I wonder if Lawrence Tabak has any personal financial interests in US cancer drug companies.

rdiddly 7y ago

I love the word "pre-patented" (i.e. not patented). Totally reminds me of pre-crime. Nationalistic mumbo-jumbo aside, the patent discussion makes it obvious what the real motivations are: it's just another money-grab. "That publicly-funded research is supposed to benefit a small cadre of American pharma rentiers at everyone's expense, not Chinese ones!"

Barrin92 7y ago
calling basic cancer research a pre-patent sounds like calling the laws of physics "pre-IP". What's next, arrest Chinese physicists for smuggling astronomical data out of the US? This American witch-hunt is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

AlexB138 7y ago

Public to whom? The citizens of the country funding the research, or to those of a country that steals the result?

ancorevard 7y ago

US tax payers is fronting $28 billion a year for NIH research. There is a lot of IP coming out of that that belongs to them, and not the Chinese Communist Party. There is such a thing as licensing agreements. Again, there are many successful scientific collaborations between US and China so don't be surprised that among some of these scientists there are some with bad characters tempted to share confidential information.

sct202 7y ago
Even when the NIH funds the research, the resulting drugs/procedures/patents are rarely owned by the Federal Government anymore because of the Bayh-Dole Act.
- ancorevard 7y ago
  Unfortunately there is not a clear segmentation here between what NIH funds and what ultimately becomes the product available on the market. NIH often fund basic research, while others pick that up and attempt to make a drug out of it. This is super simplifying it, but it's a complex process with lots of organizations and many funding sources. In addition to public funding of NIH research, it takes a commercial company (pharma) well beyond $1 billion to get one successful drug on the market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development
vkou 7y ago
The discoverer of insulin, Frederick Banting, 'sold' his patent for one dollar, to make that life-saving substance available to all. And yet, somehow, US pharma companies are overcharging diabetics to the tune of thousands of dollars a year for access to a 96-year-old drug. I'm sure those same pharma companies can figure out how to fleece the public in the distribution of any cancer cures that come out of China.
woah 7y ago
Why are the taxpayers funding confidential research? If that is going on, then we’ve found the real problem. I’m ok paying for health research that will benefit me and everyone else. I’m not ok funding secret research that some mid level beaurocrat will turn into an IP money grab as soon as they step through the revolving door to the private sector.
- laf21 7y ago
  I believe all biomedical research conducted at the NIH is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so I'm not sure confidential is the best term here.

gervase 7y ago

> Everything they do should be a public good. It seems the main disagreement is on how to define public in this context. Should it be for the good of humanity, or the good of the United States? And, if it's the latter, how can that restriction be enforced?

DoctorOetker 7y ago
It's even more ridiculous, from the same article: >Since 2010 the NIH itself has offered about $5 million a year in special grants for U.S.-China collaborations, with 20% going to cancer research, and a counterpart in China has pitched in an additional $3 million a year. So ... if we compare average living standards, China seems to be investing more
- sdinsn 7y ago
  You know what's ridiculous? That we are giving a single cent for US-China collaborations. That $5M should be going to US researchers only.

sjg007 7y ago

I agree and it’s actually the Universities who patent the work, not the NIH.. also it’s not like China would respect the intellectual property anyway... I mean that’s the other side of the argument. Maybe this is a scheme to get the China to start respecting IP.. unfortunately the side effect will be pushing research into China when their most talented won’t work in the USA. It also is pretty clear in the article that the FBI doesn’t understand cancer research.

aheilbut 7y ago

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act and even intramural NIH inventions get patented and belong to the government

cwkoss 7y ago

I wonder if Lawrence Tabak has any personal financial interests in US cancer drug companies.