
Could Ebola vaccine delay be due to an intellectual property spat? - geedy
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/could-ebola-vaccine-delay-be-due-to-an-intellectual-property-spat-1.2786214
======
rayiner
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
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
The profit motive is scary too though. It's a disincentive to finding a cure
for something rather than a perpetual treatment.

~~~
philwelch
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.

------
jordigh
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.

------
lorddoig
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).

------
vijayboyapati
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
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
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
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
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."

------
cowsandmilk
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-
test...](http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/09/ebola-vaccine-tests-
needlessly-delayed-researchers-claim)

------
Alex3917
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.

------
esaym
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.

------
lotsofmangos
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
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
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
Now try replacing IP with personal property.

~~~
lotsofmangos
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.

------
HarryHirsch
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
_Who can find fault with that?_

Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that you pay for is better than no vaccine.

~~~
Crito
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
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
Stop thinking like a crab:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality)

------
anon4343
Good luck, Ebola-chan!

