There is little doubt today that the vast majority of us are feeling very kindly-disposed toward the big pharmaceuticals. After all, they brought us quite efficacious vaccines against Covidc-19 in record time, vaccines that will in the near-future allow Western nations to return to relative normalcy.
We wait with bated breath for that time to arrive in Canada.
While we wait, it might be good to remember a couple of things: the speed with which these miracles of medicine were developed was facilitated tremendously by the infusion of billions of tax dollars by an array of governments; the resulting profits have gone almost solely to the companies who hold the patents to these vaccines. In other words, governments assumed much of the risk while reaping none of the rewards.
But, we are told that the huge profits of big pharma wrought by its pricing regimes are necessary to fund research. After all, many promising therapies are pursued that ultimately don't pan out. To restrict drug prices would inhibit research, the story goes.
No doubt there is some truth to such assertions, but the following puts into sharp relief some other aspects of pharma's expenditures that are wholly unrelated to research costs. Katie Porter, a California Democrat who sits in the House of Representatives, had a run at AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez over the rising drug prices at his company. What she uncovered isn't pretty.
Simon Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal and past head of the Royal Society, canvasses the perils and pitfalls of the migration of scientific research from governments to the private sector and they are myriad and potentially catastrophic. Part of it is monetizing science that belongs in the public realm. Part of it is potentially breakthrough science that is withheld, perhaps for decades, to preserve monopolistic control lest others develop as yet unimagined applications. Part of it is risky research that should never be undertaken, especially behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteHe lumps these into a category he calls "bio-error" which he deems as great a threat to the survival of humanity across the remainder of this century as "bio-terror" such as anthrax.
I guess the lesson here, Mound, is that despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, the tragedy of the commons is very, very real.
Delete"On January 11, 2020, Chinese researchers published the genetic sequence of the virus. Moderna’s mRNA vaccine recipe was finalized in about 48 hours."
ReplyDeleteIt's worth reading this story in The Atlantic, because it's the only decent story about the 40 year journey of mRNA technology that I've seen. Once a company is au fait with the technology, they can turn out a new vaccine very rapidly. Which is why I never understood why the Feds didn't help out Providence Therapeutics of Calgary Toronto, and spent millions on Medicago and the NRC plant in Montreal to make "old-fashioned" viral vector vaccines along the lines of AZ and Janssen.
You may or may not modify your feelings following a perusal. One things for sure, Pfizer and Moderna are coining it.
And everyone should read this CBC article from two days ago on the Feds $200m funding in Mussissauga of a Resilience Biotechnologies Inc expansion to make mRNA vaccines. Maybe some federal twit has also finally realized that Providence Therapeutics is worth keeping in mind, although it says that firm is in very, very early stages. All the more reason to support it, in my view. These other plants are just to make someone else's existing vaccines, not a made in Canada from scratch solution.
BM
Thanks for the references, BM. I shall look them up this morning. I am always happy to modify my views when the evidence warrants a revisit.
Delete