4 ms·

Interesting article on new promise for "rejuvenation" therapies (once the realm of science fiction). Last paragraph puts its finger on one of the reasons progr

Interesting article on new promise for "rejuvenation" therapies (once the realm of science fiction). Last paragraph puts its finger on one of the reasons progress is so slow: > The most promising avenue for rejuvenation (IMO) is not attracting research attention because it cannot attract venture capital; it can’t attract venture capital because there is no attractive business model; and there is no business model because of the structure of our patent law.

ericmcer 4y ago
Would that really dissuade a Musk/Bezos/Gates from investing in it? Our society is flush with billionaires and a procedure that restored youth would be worth 1000X a money making investment to them.
- sp332 4y ago
  You can't 1000x investment if there is no barrier to entry for competition.
  - nonameiguess 4y ago
    They're saying a treatment that can actually reverse aging and prolong lifespan is worth 1000x more than money, especially to someone who already has more money than they can possibly spend in a (currently expected) lifetime.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    There are other barriers than patents. First mover advantage, brand name recognition, first to achieve low cost, strategic partnerships, etc.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  How do you know they're not investing in it? If they are would it be worth their trying to make money on it or would they consider it worth more if they kept it to themselves?
gumby 4y ago
> Meanwhile, the four questions I listed above are not being addressed. Patent law is working against us, since Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented. > This is the maddening influence of capitalism and intellectual property law on anti-aging science. The most promising avenue for rejuvenation (IMO) is not attracting research attention because it cannot attract venture capital; it can’t attract venture capital because there is no attractive business model; and there is no business model because of the structure of our patent law. This is common in pharma patent law. At an earlier company we made some progress on a treatment for a fairly common disease, but it looked like any compounding pharmacy could make it. So we abandoned that path and went in a different direction that was protectable (and more effective, true). The inverse is the case as well: had the less effective treatment been available, it might not have been worth developing something that could help even more people, because those that needed the better treatment would not be enough to justify development. But the situation is not as clear as stated by the author. First of all, much of the work is basic research, and that is mostly funded by governments and charities. Second of all, even if you've identified a mechanism of action, developing a feasible in vivo way to trigger that action, figuring out how to manufacture it at scale, and getting it approved can provide many patent opportunities. When people complain "why are drugs expensive when the government pays for it" they miss the point: "government" developed the transistor,* it was private companies that developed the IC and the microprocessor. The situation with drugs is analogous. * Yes the transistor was invented at Bell Labs, but Bell Labs only existed due to the structure of the government's consent decree for the Bell telephone company, and when that decree was lifted Bell Labs suffered a precipitous decline. Anyway, it's just an analogy.
- hcknwscommenter 4y ago
  >Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented. This is not legal advice, but I firmly disagree with these statements. Individual naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented, but: A method of treating aging by administering the individual protein can be patented. A specific combination (subset) of naturally occurring proteins that is otherwise not really found together in nature in an isolated manner, is likely patentable A highly concentrated extract (or other means of making the particular combination) that is not found in nature is patentable A method of making the combination is likely patentable. A compound that begins as a naturally occuring protein, but is modified in some way for therapeutic efficacy (pegylation, truncation, fusion, etc.) is patentable A formulation suitable for administration (with buffers, stabilizers, etc.) is patentable. There are many inventions that go into making a therapeutic. Yes the compound itself provides the cleanest and most valuable patent protection, but natural products can be protected. Then there is regulatory exclusivity, which can be an entirely different ball of wax that does not necessarily have anything to do with patents at all.
sinenomine 4y ago
It's not just (or even predominantly) patent law: if there is no explicit or implicit agreement for FDA to approve some treatments that modulate ageing (to even become a possibility, this category of indications should be created) and for the healthcare provider complex (insurers, governments, clinics) to provide said treatments to the public, there is no prospective market. Until there is a coordinated push to align our regulatory and medical systems with this challenge, the status quo will remain frozen. Will a few remaining decades be enough for the metaphorical ice to crack?
amelius 4y ago
Why can't it attract venture capital if the possible outcome is worth more than what money can buy, regardless of any argument about competition? Are VCs only interested in wealth that is in excess of other people's wealth?

ericmcer 4y ago

Would that really dissuade a Musk/Bezos/Gates from investing in it? Our society is flush with billionaires and a procedure that restored youth would be worth 1000X a money making investment to them.

sp332 4y ago
You can't 1000x investment if there is no barrier to entry for competition.
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  They're saying a treatment that can actually reverse aging and prolong lifespan is worth 1000x more than money, especially to someone who already has more money than they can possibly spend in a (currently expected) lifetime.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  There are other barriers than patents. First mover advantage, brand name recognition, first to achieve low cost, strategic partnerships, etc.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
How do you know they're not investing in it? If they are would it be worth their trying to make money on it or would they consider it worth more if they kept it to themselves?

gumby 4y ago

> Meanwhile, the four questions I listed above are not being addressed. Patent law is working against us, since Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented. > This is the maddening influence of capitalism and intellectual property law on anti-aging science. The most promising avenue for rejuvenation (IMO) is not attracting research attention because it cannot attract venture capital; it can’t attract venture capital because there is no attractive business model; and there is no business model because of the structure of our patent law. This is common in pharma patent law. At an earlier company we made some progress on a treatment for a fairly common disease, but it looked like any compounding pharmacy could make it. So we abandoned that path and went in a different direction that was protectable (and more effective, true). The inverse is the case as well: had the less effective treatment been available, it might not have been worth developing something that could help even more people, because those that needed the better treatment would not be enough to justify development. But the situation is not as clear as stated by the author. First of all, much of the work is basic research, and that is mostly funded by governments and charities. Second of all, even if you've identified a mechanism of action, developing a feasible in vivo way to trigger that action, figuring out how to manufacture it at scale, and getting it approved can provide many patent opportunities. When people complain "why are drugs expensive when the government pays for it" they miss the point: "government" developed the transistor,* it was private companies that developed the IC and the microprocessor. The situation with drugs is analogous. * Yes the transistor was invented at Bell Labs, but Bell Labs only existed due to the structure of the government's consent decree for the Bell telephone company, and when that decree was lifted Bell Labs suffered a precipitous decline. Anyway, it's just an analogy.

hcknwscommenter 4y ago
>Katcher’s E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented. This is not legal advice, but I firmly disagree with these statements. Individual naturally occurring proteins cannot be patented, but: A method of treating aging by administering the individual protein can be patented. A specific combination (subset) of naturally occurring proteins that is otherwise not really found together in nature in an isolated manner, is likely patentable A highly concentrated extract (or other means of making the particular combination) that is not found in nature is patentable A method of making the combination is likely patentable. A compound that begins as a naturally occuring protein, but is modified in some way for therapeutic efficacy (pegylation, truncation, fusion, etc.) is patentable A formulation suitable for administration (with buffers, stabilizers, etc.) is patentable. There are many inventions that go into making a therapeutic. Yes the compound itself provides the cleanest and most valuable patent protection, but natural products can be protected. Then there is regulatory exclusivity, which can be an entirely different ball of wax that does not necessarily have anything to do with patents at all.

sinenomine 4y ago

It's not just (or even predominantly) patent law: if there is no explicit or implicit agreement for FDA to approve some treatments that modulate ageing (to even become a possibility, this category of indications should be created) and for the healthcare provider complex (insurers, governments, clinics) to provide said treatments to the public, there is no prospective market. Until there is a coordinated push to align our regulatory and medical systems with this challenge, the status quo will remain frozen. Will a few remaining decades be enough for the metaphorical ice to crack?

amelius 4y ago

Why can't it attract venture capital if the possible outcome is worth more than what money can buy, regardless of any argument about competition? Are VCs only interested in wealth that is in excess of other people's wealth?