[Mb-civic] WORTH READING: Patent nonsense on avian flu - Alec van Gelder - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Patent nonsense on avian flu

By Alec van Gelder  |  October 31, 2005

WITH ALL the hysteria surrounding the possible mutation of the Avian flu 
virus into a form that puts humans at risk, policymakers have subjected 
us to everything -- except common sense. There are no easy solutions to 
the outbreak that is predicted, and more deaths are likely. Misleading 
the public and ignoring the outcome of myopic actions is simply not 
acceptable with millions of lives at stake.

At least 65 people have already perished from a strain of Avian flu 
called H5N1, contracted from close contact with poultry. A further 100 
are believed to be infected. The virus has spread west from Southeast 
Asia to Turkey and Russia, carried by migrating birds. Those most at 
risk are people who work closely with poultry in unsanitary, cramped 
conditions: By definition, these people are poor.

So far, there is no proof that a strand of H5N1 can spread between 
humans, nor that it will. Yet the hysteria surrounding Avian flu far 
surpasses that which accompanies the yearly arrival of a new flu strand, 
which regularly kills hundreds of people. And it far surpasses the 
attention given to other diseases, such as diarrhea, which claim at 
least 3 million lives a year in poor countries.

The reason for this hysteria is the prediction that, if this virus 
mutates into a form transmissible between humans, tens of millions will 
be at risk -- as in the 1918 pandemic that killed 50 million to 100 
million people. But what is the rational response to such predictions?

We know that viruses mutate and strike in unpredictable ways. It is 
plausible that this virus might mutate as has been predicted and that an 
epidemic -- or even a pandemic -- might result. Since we cannot predict 
exactly how, where, or when the virus might mutate, we need a response 
that is both preventative and adaptive.

Preventative measures might include vaccinating those likely to become 
infected with both H5N1 and conventional influenza viruses. This would 
reduce the chances that H5N1 could acquire genes that would enable it to 
be transmitted between humans.

Adaptive measures might include identifying potential vaccines and 
treatments for H5N1 and ensuring that these are available for use when 
necessary.

So far only one medicine has proved effective in treating human cases of 
H5N1. That medicine, Tamiflu, was developed by the Switzerland-based 
pharmaceutical company Roche, which owns the patent. Because of the 
pressure to ''do something," politicians are considering breaking 
Roche's patent on the populist premise that this will increase the 
availability of Tamiflu.

While it makes sense to build government stockpiles of Tamiflu in 
preparation for a possible outbreak of H5N1, it is far from clear that 
breaking the patent would be helpful -- indeed the opposite is more 
likely to be the case for several reasons.

First, the raw ingredients for Tamiflu come from a Chinese herb which is 
in short supply. Unless production of the herb is increased, it will be 
impossible to increase production of Tamiflu. In this case, breaking the 
patent would have no impact on availability of the drug.

Second, Tamiflu is difficult to manufacture. Since Roche has developed 
the manufacturing expertise, it seems sensible to encourage Roche to 
increase production and/or to help other companies produce the drug 
under a voluntary license. Breaking the patent through a compulsory 
license would actively discourage Roche from either producing the drug 
or lending its expertise, which would be directly counterproductive.

Third, given that scientists have only a vague idea of what a human 
strain of H5N1 might look like, there is no certainty that Tamiflu will 
be effective. Even if Tamiflu does work on some people, widespread use 
would inevitably result in the development of resistant strains. So, 
either way, alternatives are clearly needed.

Yet if governments break the patent on Tamiflu, no pharmaceutical 
company is going to want to develop a new antiviral for fear that their 
expensively developed innovative medicine will simply be stolen without 
adequate compensation for the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars 
invested.

In light of the potential threat posed by a human strain of H5N1 or 
other similarly deadly viruses, there are constructive things that 
governments could do. First, they could offer to purchase large 
quantities of vaccines or antivirals that meet clearly defined criteria. 
Second, they might also offer tax breaks to companies that choose to 
invest in the development of relevant drugs.

But the most important role for government is to uphold private property 
rights and ensure that the rule of law applies -- which means protecting 
rather than breaking patents. The alternative -- the rule of the mob -- 
would truly be devastating.

Alec van Gelder is a research fellow specializing in technology issues 
at the International Policy Network in London.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/10/31/patent_nonsense_on_avian_flu/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051031/4fd07557/attachment.htm