COM 0882.009 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NAS's and Venter's warning should be carefully considered by scientists. We cannot have a two tiered system where some publish and share data and others hoard and keep secrets in the name of patent protection. Consider my own experience (based on a real example of malaria drug resistance). Suppose there are three drugs under investigation A, B and C. I publish (without patent) that drug A and B are ineffective based on a special analysis that I devised. The company reads the publication, confirms the results, discontinues development of A and B and pursues, patents and markets C. Shouldn't I receive some of the monetary rewards for sales of drug C or is publication my only reward? It is tempting to link patents only with commercialization of products - but in the above example the process is complicated and not clear. Not only did my advice stop the development of A and B but it resulted in a test to show that C was effective. Furthermore, once product C is marketed, will the company allow me access to the product to study other side effects? This too would affect the commercialization of the product but in a negative way and they may be inclined to restrict access via patent arguments. If, patents are taken on GM taro there must be credit given to the Hawaiians who have already contributed so much to the development and understanding of all aspects of non- GM taro. However, in light of the NAS review, I believe scientists are obliged to support publications over patents. For scientists who disagree, I would ask that their financial conflicts of interest be reviewed. If industry controls so much of the development budget and they are reluctant to look for side effects which might derail a product line, then how do we insure that adequate safety studies are funded? The only way to insure this is to have a strong regulatory agency demanding parallel studies for health and environmental safety. Our Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used to be such an agency, until it was crippled by conflict of interest. Recently there have been numerous articles in medical journals and a Senate Investigation criticizing the FDA for conflict of interest- Analogously, FDA staff were operating under a "conflict of fear". A few months ago the head of the FDA resigned under criticism for this problem. Several reports and articles pointedly, write: "Sccl rrrliets can be naive about politics, PR, and other external factors shaping their work and mfr become srdigrwnt at the suggestion gat their resin am shaped by their fording" - ReMptonr S Sit uwJ. Ressomb fwxAng, COIWW ofin<ereA and ft of public relabons, Public Health Reports, July 4ug 2002 (17); 331-9. FDA epidemiologist David Graham - " 1 would argue that the FDA as currently configured, is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx. We are virtually defenseless." ...an atmosphere that that stifles debate ...Is very much driven by what industry wants ...more a cultureof fear." - Okie S. What Ails the FDA, 2005 NEJM 352(11), 1063-6. FDA panel met to discuss release of new 2 drugs - FDA says "because of the general nature of the discussions before the committee, these potential conflicts are mitigated." The panel members with financial interest themselves say that their ties did not influence their votes. Yet of those with Interests 93% votes were for the drugs compared to only 66% of those without interests. The drugs got approvals but if the conflicted members had not been allowed to vote the drugs would not have been approved. - Steinbrook R. Financial Conflicts of Interest and the FDA's Advisory Committees. 14 Jury 2005, NEJM 353(2), p 118-8. Upon resignation of FDA halal Dr Crawford, Senator Clinton said " Under his watch the agency faced scrutiny over ft response to various crises:...am failure to adequately separate science from what can only be sees as ideology-driven