5 ms·

Could Ebola vaccine delay be due to an intellectual property spat?

64 points by geedy 12y ago

anon4343 12y ago
Good luck, Ebola-chan!
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Folk hold up pharmaceuticals as an example of the one industry where IP protections are vital. Stories like this really make me wonder about that.
- chc 12y ago
  How does this story reflect on whether or not patents are vital to this industry? That seems a bit like reading a story about a drowning and saying, "This makes me wonder if water is really vital to human life." And I don't see how any of this reflects on other forms of intellectual property.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    If IP disputes stop you using something when society as a whole really needs it, it doesn't really matter if the existence of IP was an efficient way of motivating the creators of that thing, as it is still effectively useless.
    - csdrane 12y ago
      Now try replacing IP with personal property.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Personal property is subject to compulsory purchase all the time for municipal infrastructure and in times of emergency is subject to state requisition without compensation.
    - dalke 12y ago
      Patent law already covers this case. TRIPS Agreement, article 31b allows "society as a whole" to use a patent without even contacting the patent holder "in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use."
- rhino369 12y ago
  It's not really intellectual property that is the issue, it is the contract Canada signed with the company. It's really no different than if Canada contracted with a food distributor and the distributor was dragging its feet. The issue there wouldn't be food property rights, it's picking the shitty distributor.
jordigh 12y ago
I wish people would actually say what the issue is instead of the vague "IP" monicker. We're talking about patents. Just patents. Not trademarks. Not copyrights. Not design patents. Not regional designation. Not integrated circuit designs. Just patents. Now that we know what we're talking about, let's have a coolheaded discussion about pharmaceutical patents and only pharmaceutical patents, without comparing them to any other irrelevant law. In particular let's question the situation of the Canadian Crown being able to hold patents.
menriquez 12y ago
of course it can. patents has been protecting corporate profits for a very long time. how is this any different from the old and powerful sending the young and disposable away to distant wars to suffer and die? this stuff is baked into humanity.
Alex3917 12y ago
The worse the epidemic gets the more money they stand to make, so they don't really have much incentive to start shipping the vaccine now. Especially since it sounds like they're the only vaccine with enough doses to do large scale trials.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
HarryHirsch 12y ago
IIRC, during one of the recent influenza pandemics Indonesia (a hot spot then) refused to supply virus samples to the CDC because they feared that they would be charged full fare for any vaccine that would be developed. Who can find fault with that?
- mhb 12y ago
  Who can find fault with that? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that you pay for is better than no vaccine.
  - Crito 12y ago
    So really: Anybody with more than two braincells to rub together. Impeding the development of a vaccine because you fear that you personally will not be able to afford it is the worst kind of stupid. The kind of stupid which leaves you feeling self-righteous but harms others.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      No, just anyone with more than two but less than five brain cells, which would be enough to understand the concepts of malicious actors and game theory. The real question is whether the fear was well-founded. What does history say about it? Does US have a habit of taking free samples only to turn around and profit on them later? If it does, then it's a Dane-Geld scenario and Indonesia would be stupid to comply without trying to secure access to the vaccine for its own people. If this was the case (I haven't read anything about it), then it would be more of an US fault for halting the progress.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Stop thinking like a crab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
rayiner 12y ago
There is this idea that science should be a noble calling and the fruits of research should be free to the world. That creates a perverse incentive, where you can't get rich working on fundamental research, so the folks who are bright but not selfless go into advertising and entertainment and consumer products, areas where it's "ok to get rich." My brother did physics research through college, and was published in a prestigious journal by the time he graduated. He took his Ivy-league physics degree to Wall Street, because you're never going to get rich working in a research lab. And if you decry patents, you remove one of the few ways it is possible for researchers to get rich from their work. And just drive more people away from the field. I'm generally not a "greed is good" kind of guy. But as long as we live in a society where making a lot of money gives you every societal advantage, from better education for your kids to better healthcare, we can't avoid thinking about the incentive structures we create.
- refurb 12y ago
  That's a great point. One of the reasons why we have people dumping billions of dollars into drug research is because there is the opportunity for huge returns. Kill the profit motive and you'll kill (most, not all) of the innovative new drugs.
  - bostonpete 12y ago
    The profit motive is scary too though. It's a disincentive to finding a cure for something rather than a perpetual treatment.
    - philwelch 12y ago
      Only if you hold a monopoly or participate in a cartel. If GSK has a perpetual treatment Merck has every incentive to release a cure to cut them out.
    - hderms 12y ago
      Therefore we need to heavily incentivize researchers in the public sphere (who don't necessarily have the same type of perpetual treatment motive), along with allowing the free market researchers to operate according to their own goals. It would be irrelevant that pharma companies benefit more from perpetual treatment if public research was a more effective balance against that. If pharma doesn't pursue a cure, and a cure is conceivable, then it would behoove academics to pursue it (as the acclaim, and hopefully financial incentive they'd receive would easily motivate them). However, due to the competition for public funding, people are less likely to go down an expensive and time consuming path like that. They're much more likely to pursue incremental discoveries that lead to continued funding rather than bet the farm on a longshot. The main problem, in my opinion, is that there simply isn't enough science funding.
vijayboyapati 12y ago
I gave a lecture on this at the University of Washington in 2010 and it covers intellectual property as one of the four major causes for the cost of health care in the US: http://mises.org/daily/4434 http://mises.org/daily/4434
- refurb 12y ago
  That doesn't really pass the sniff test. Drug spending accounts for ~10% of all healthcare spending in the US. The US pay about 10-30% more for drugs than the US. If the US was paying EU prices, it would reduce the total healthcare expenditure by 1-2%? Right now the US spends almost 50% more than other OECD countries.
  - vijayboyapati 12y ago
    My claim was not that it was the only factor, but that it was a major factor - I list three other major factors, the first being the most important. Comparison to the EU misses the point; both the EU and the US have intellectual property laws creating monopolies over drug production. The comparison should be to the state of the world if intellectual property law was not in force. There is little evidence that this would lead to a major reduction in production, although drug companies would really like you to believe this.
    - refurb 12y ago
      I agree with your other 3 points. I don't agree that new drug production would stay the same without patents. Why would a drug company spend $100M-$1B to make a new drug, when the next company can start selling it for $0.10 per pill?
      - vijayboyapati 12y ago
        I covered that in the article: "In particular, Boldrin and Levine devote a chapter of their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, to the pharmaceutical industry. They argue that the actual cost of bringing drugs to market is substantially lower than the estimates produced by the pharmaceutical industry — a group with a vested interest in lobbying for strong patent protections. They also provide evidence that in many instances the existence of patents hinders research in drug production."
esaym 12y ago
The issue of IP or patent bothers me a lot less than the fact that vaccine makers have legal immunity against any potential patient injuries or deaths.
lorddoig 12y ago
As an aside - for a wonderfully complete proposal on how to align corporate and social goals when it comes to IP in healthcare, you should see the literature on 'patent buy-outs', starting with this seminal paper by Michael Kremer: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6304 http://www.nber.org/papers/w6304.
cowsandmilk 12y ago
The ScienceInsider article[1] they cite does not mention intellectual property a single time. To me, this reads like baseless speculation from CBC, when there are a litany of possible reasons for the delays listed by both sides in the ScienceInsider article. Things like protocol design for how the clinical trial should be performed are not "IP" spats, but science and statistics spats. What endpoints do you use to declare a vaccine is effective? How should patients be monitored for side effects? etc. [1] http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-tests-needlessly-delayed-researchers-claim http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-test...
godgod 12y ago
Yes. Someone has to make money off people dying.

64 points by geedy 12y ago

Good luck, Ebola-chan!

Folk hold up pharmaceuticals as an example of the one industry where IP protections are vital. Stories like this really make me wonder about that.

chc 12y ago
How does this story reflect on whether or not patents are vital to this industry? That seems a bit like reading a story about a drowning and saying, "This makes me wonder if water is really vital to human life." And I don't see how any of this reflects on other forms of intellectual property.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  If IP disputes stop you using something when society as a whole really needs it, it doesn't really matter if the existence of IP was an efficient way of motivating the creators of that thing, as it is still effectively useless.
  - csdrane 12y ago
    Now try replacing IP with personal property.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Personal property is subject to compulsory purchase all the time for municipal infrastructure and in times of emergency is subject to state requisition without compensation.
  - dalke 12y ago
    Patent law already covers this case. TRIPS Agreement, article 31b allows "society as a whole" to use a patent without even contacting the patent holder "in the case of a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use."
rhino369 12y ago
It's not really intellectual property that is the issue, it is the contract Canada signed with the company. It's really no different than if Canada contracted with a food distributor and the distributor was dragging its feet. The issue there wouldn't be food property rights, it's picking the shitty distributor.

jordigh 12y ago

I wish people would actually say what the issue is instead of the vague "IP" monicker. We're talking about patents. Just patents. Not trademarks. Not copyrights. Not design patents. Not regional designation. Not integrated circuit designs. Just patents. Now that we know what we're talking about, let's have a coolheaded discussion about pharmaceutical patents and only pharmaceutical patents, without comparing them to any other irrelevant law. In particular let's question the situation of the Canadian Crown being able to hold patents.

menriquez 12y ago

of course it can. patents has been protecting corporate profits for a very long time. how is this any different from the old and powerful sending the young and disposable away to distant wars to suffer and die? this stuff is baked into humanity.

Alex3917 12y ago

The worse the epidemic gets the more money they stand to make, so they don't really have much incentive to start shipping the vaccine now. Especially since it sounds like they're the only vaccine with enough doses to do large scale trials.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

HarryHirsch 12y ago

IIRC, during one of the recent influenza pandemics Indonesia (a hot spot then) refused to supply virus samples to the CDC because they feared that they would be charged full fare for any vaccine that would be developed. Who can find fault with that?

mhb 12y ago
Who can find fault with that? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that you pay for is better than no vaccine.
- Crito 12y ago
  So really: Anybody with more than two braincells to rub together. Impeding the development of a vaccine because you fear that you personally will not be able to afford it is the worst kind of stupid. The kind of stupid which leaves you feeling self-righteous but harms others.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    No, just anyone with more than two but less than five brain cells, which would be enough to understand the concepts of malicious actors and game theory. The real question is whether the fear was well-founded. What does history say about it? Does US have a habit of taking free samples only to turn around and profit on them later? If it does, then it's a Dane-Geld scenario and Indonesia would be stupid to comply without trying to secure access to the vaccine for its own people. If this was the case (I haven't read anything about it), then it would be more of an US fault for halting the progress.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Stop thinking like a crab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

rayiner 12y ago

There is this idea that science should be a noble calling and the fruits of research should be free to the world. That creates a perverse incentive, where you can't get rich working on fundamental research, so the folks who are bright but not selfless go into advertising and entertainment and consumer products, areas where it's "ok to get rich." My brother did physics research through college, and was published in a prestigious journal by the time he graduated. He took his Ivy-league physics degree to Wall Street, because you're never going to get rich working in a research lab. And if you decry patents, you remove one of the few ways it is possible for researchers to get rich from their work. And just drive more people away from the field. I'm generally not a "greed is good" kind of guy. But as long as we live in a society where making a lot of money gives you every societal advantage, from better education for your kids to better healthcare, we can't avoid thinking about the incentive structures we create.

refurb 12y ago
That's a great point. One of the reasons why we have people dumping billions of dollars into drug research is because there is the opportunity for huge returns. Kill the profit motive and you'll kill (most, not all) of the innovative new drugs.
- bostonpete 12y ago
  The profit motive is scary too though. It's a disincentive to finding a cure for something rather than a perpetual treatment.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    Only if you hold a monopoly or participate in a cartel. If GSK has a perpetual treatment Merck has every incentive to release a cure to cut them out.
  - hderms 12y ago
    Therefore we need to heavily incentivize researchers in the public sphere (who don't necessarily have the same type of perpetual treatment motive), along with allowing the free market researchers to operate according to their own goals. It would be irrelevant that pharma companies benefit more from perpetual treatment if public research was a more effective balance against that. If pharma doesn't pursue a cure, and a cure is conceivable, then it would behoove academics to pursue it (as the acclaim, and hopefully financial incentive they'd receive would easily motivate them). However, due to the competition for public funding, people are less likely to go down an expensive and time consuming path like that. They're much more likely to pursue incremental discoveries that lead to continued funding rather than bet the farm on a longshot. The main problem, in my opinion, is that there simply isn't enough science funding.

vijayboyapati 12y ago

I gave a lecture on this at the University of Washington in 2010 and it covers intellectual property as one of the four major causes for the cost of health care in the US: http://mises.org/daily/4434 http://mises.org/daily/4434

refurb 12y ago
That doesn't really pass the sniff test. Drug spending accounts for ~10% of all healthcare spending in the US. The US pay about 10-30% more for drugs than the US. If the US was paying EU prices, it would reduce the total healthcare expenditure by 1-2%? Right now the US spends almost 50% more than other OECD countries.
- vijayboyapati 12y ago
  My claim was not that it was the only factor, but that it was a major factor - I list three other major factors, the first being the most important. Comparison to the EU misses the point; both the EU and the US have intellectual property laws creating monopolies over drug production. The comparison should be to the state of the world if intellectual property law was not in force. There is little evidence that this would lead to a major reduction in production, although drug companies would really like you to believe this.
  - refurb 12y ago
    I agree with your other 3 points. I don't agree that new drug production would stay the same without patents. Why would a drug company spend $100M-$1B to make a new drug, when the next company can start selling it for $0.10 per pill?
    - vijayboyapati 12y ago
      I covered that in the article: "In particular, Boldrin and Levine devote a chapter of their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, to the pharmaceutical industry. They argue that the actual cost of bringing drugs to market is substantially lower than the estimates produced by the pharmaceutical industry — a group with a vested interest in lobbying for strong patent protections. They also provide evidence that in many instances the existence of patents hinders research in drug production."

esaym 12y ago

The issue of IP or patent bothers me a lot less than the fact that vaccine makers have legal immunity against any potential patient injuries or deaths.

lorddoig 12y ago

As an aside - for a wonderfully complete proposal on how to align corporate and social goals when it comes to IP in healthcare, you should see the literature on 'patent buy-outs', starting with this seminal paper by Michael Kremer: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6304 http://www.nber.org/papers/w6304.

cowsandmilk 12y ago

The ScienceInsider article[1] they cite does not mention intellectual property a single time. To me, this reads like baseless speculation from CBC, when there are a litany of possible reasons for the delays listed by both sides in the ScienceInsider article. Things like protocol design for how the clinical trial should be performed are not "IP" spats, but science and statistics spats. What endpoints do you use to declare a vaccine is effective? How should patients be monitored for side effects? etc. [1] http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-tests-needlessly-delayed-researchers-claim http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-test...

godgod 12y ago

Yes. Someone has to make money off people dying.