GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has offered to contribute to a voluntary patent pool to develop treatments for neglected diseases, among a set of claims that will have set the industry abuzz in strategising future business moves.The big news, of course, is in the Reuters report: that GSK is keen to create a voluntary patent pool to develop new treatments for neglected diseases. It announced that it would contribute its own patents for technologies that “might aid research into malaria, cholera and other diseases”. This would be opened up to other companies to add patents to, and be made available to third-party researchers.
However, GSK specifically excluded AIDS from the list of diseases that such a patent pool would cater to, indicating that “the pool was meant to focus on diseases with a severe lack of treatments, and the need for greater access to AIDS medicines was being addressed in other ways.”
Not surprisingly, health activists not taken this very well. However, UNITAID, an international drug purchase facility, whose patent pool related to AIDS treatments is expected to go live in 2009, was magnanimous enough to welcome GSK’s statement, pointing out that this was “a positive signal from an originator company, that industry intends to do more for diseases in poor countries.”
- Transparency: GSK has pledged to publish all clinical trial data, notwithstanding whether the results ar epositive or negative, and be more transparent about its payments to doctors.
- Drug price negotiation: GSK is willing to negotiate on the prices of its drugs – it clearly seems to want to avoid a reprise of the 2001 South African issue where GSK was part of the MNC lobby that made a failed attempt to institute legal action against the state for importing cheap drugs.
- Profits for poor: It will invest 20 percent of profits made in least-developed countries towards building healthcare clinics and related infrastructure in those countries.
- End to unethical experimentation: GSK has said it will “end practices that cause public anxiety”, referring to its announcement in late 2008 to never again to experiment on great apes.
GSK’s move also draws parallels with IBM’s “eco patent commons” advertised just over a year ago, where IBM, Nokia, Pitney Bowes and Sony, got together to create a pool of environmentally-responsible patents to the public domain, in a portfolio available here. I’m curious to see how many jump into the fray with GSK in this story.
Dear Sumathi,
I don’t quite understand what were you intending when you said: “Not surprisingly, health activists not taken this very well”. When you make such blanket statements, please do make it a point to come out clear. Or, for all good, just refrain from making them. In fact, major public health groups have welcomed the GSK move. See for eg: http://www.msfaccess.org/media-room/press-releases/press-release-detail/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1532&cHash=f8c0eca3b4
This blog, I presume, is to nurture a healthy debate on a variety of legal and policy issues concerning IP. There can be genuine reasons why public health groups are skeptic about this move. Not that they would want to vilify the “Big Pharma”, but for some other reasons in this particular case. Do you have any idea as to the amount of money that will flow into generating R&D for such diseases due to the WHO-GSPOA until 2015? Think what has this got to do with the GSK move.
Change in business models is very well invited. But we need to wait and watch as to what terms will follow for providing access to the pool. Who will have access? Is an outsider allowed to have access to the pool? Pools are based on the principle of cross licensing. We have to wait and watch. So presenting genuine and informed skepticism is all invited!
What has made GSK to suddenly recall its social contract with the society? Does it mean that GSK, until now, was unable to understand what its notions are about pricing and access in developing countries? Does it also mean that other companies who do not follow the GSK on this are not complying their contract with the society? Take a call on these issues and feel free to contribute YOUR thoughts.
However, better late than never! At least, some company has realized that business for business is a bad deal. High volume low price margin sounds a good model indeed!
Now, you’re either sounding naive about business tactics of playing the CSR game or are genuinely motivated to wrongly dub every public policy skepticism as bad. So please STOP vilifying health groups if you can’t contribute to anything better! I may sound a bit harsh, but some of you on this blog have always tried to portray even genuine considerations in bad light. And if you feel that you are “objective” enough in your views on such issues, I dare you not to moderate this comment. Take a call and debate. And not for the sake of debate but to really think and act on public policy issues. Of course, you’re entitled to your own views. All may not agree to your views or ours, but we will defend your right to have them.
Thanks,
Someone really wanting to have an “informed debate”
Whoa!
Dear Someone really want to have an “informed debate”:
My comment on health activists not having taken “it” well referred to reactions to GSK having explicitly excluded AIDS from the patent pool. And in that regard, the sentence was a reference to reports that I had read earlier, notably the Reuters story, which included an opinion to that effect. My apologies if that message was conveyed incorrectly. There was no intention of vilifying any interest group, whether civil society, or industry, or anyone else.
On your charge of lack of objectivity, if I understood it correctly, I beg to differ. One of the principles of objectivity is to present differing points of view to the recipient of the information, and let that person decide which position to agree with. To side with one position or the other myself would deny the “story” its objectivity, and be tantamount to an editorial comment. There are times when writers on this blog have done exactly that, including myself. There have, for instance, been occasions where I have expressed overtly partisan views, but almost always with the caveat that those were my “own” views, and therefore, supplementary to the “story” itself. (And therefore, more in the nature of an opinion or a comment, if you will). This was not one of those occasions.
If you persist in believing that this, or any other post, exhibits naivete, or lack of informed scepticism, for reasons merely of an absence of superlatives is, if you will allow me to counter-argue, naive itself.
There was no reason to take up cudgels on an issue that never invited any. You will never be refused the right to express your opinion on this blog, but you can’t hold a gun to someone’s head and expect them to express opinions that they may not in fact have.
I don’t know which part of the world you live in, but I hope it’s springtime there. Do step out and enjoy a sniff of the pleasant sunlit air, and take a look at the dahlias blooming on the roadside. Maybe you’ll agree (I shan’t force you to, though) that the winter is on the wane (for now, at least), and (I know you’ll agree to this surely) that in fact, GSK may have just added that spring to one’s step, and made the world a little better…
Thanks for the quick response! yea, spring has arrived here and we have more reasons to celebrate now. Please don’t get me wrong this time. I wasn’t willing to hold a gun onto your head or wanting you to use superlatives.
No qualms at all! Your apologies are accepted. But please do us all a favor. When you hold or don’t hold a view, do explain your reasons with FACTS.
Thanks
Dear Anonymous:
I fail to understand your angst. Sumathi stated:
“However, GSK specifically excluded AIDS from the list of diseases that such a patent pool would cater to, indicating that “the pool was meant to focus on diseases with a severe lack of treatments, and the need for greater access to AIDS medicines was being addressed in other ways.”
Not surprisingly, health activists not taken this very well.”
What is wrong with her statement above? If AIDS has been left out, wouldn’t all of us expect health activists to be upset? Plain simple logic….
Dear shamnad
Better to leave this topic and look into comment whihc is made against this news
SpicyIP Tidbit: New pricing rules for imported drugs
Check it ou this comment and I hope you get better debatable topic.
Regards
Anon-I