The issue raises a dilemma for which there are no easy answers. For both sides are right.
From the WHO’s point of view, this is about saving lives. They’ve just declared a global pandemic. Many millions could die. Here’s a way of preventing the disease. In poor countries, people just can’t pay for the vaccines. So if you price the vaccines, they simply won’t use it. So is it ethically OK to let many die when you could possibly prevent it ?
From Novartis’ point of view, they are a commercial organization, not a charity. There is a cost to producing the vaccine. What they are saying to the poor countries is, at least cover costs. If they simply produced every life saying drug and distributed free to people just because they were too poor to pay for the cost, they would soon be out of business themselves. Why would they even want to take up research on swine flu vaccine if they kneow they would lose their shirts because of it.
One answer could be that governments buy the vaccines and distribute free to the poor. But then governments don’t have the money either. What’s so special about swine flu. The common flu kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. Shouldn’t we be distributing common flu vaccines to everybody free. And why not Tuberculosis vaccines, or vaccines against other killer diseases ? There is definitely not enough money amongst governments to distribute every vaccine free.
This is not an easy dilemma. So what is to be done.
I have a humble suggestion. The concept of open source, in the IT world, lends a powerful model. People around the world voluntarily come together and donate their expertise for free. And such projects coexist with the business world where companies charge for a similar product or service. Consumers are free to chose.
In the case of the vaccine, the cost is all in the intellectual property of creating the vaccine. The actual manufacture costs a pittance. So why not create an open source platform for the researchers of the world to collaborate voluntarily. That way Novartis can create and produce drugs and vaccines in the normal business way. The open source guys will create for free.
Both have a place in the world. The on line world has shown us that.
Posts
6 comments:
Unique thinking Ramesh ...would have never thought about it like this .... but then I could never come up with a post like this either .....good one.
That was a very fresh solutions to a difficult problem .. Open source solutions, why not??
LEB - Thanks for the kind words
Thoughtful Train - Not sure, but maybe .....
what u r sugggesting is adapting the open source platform (OSP) , because of it obvious success in the IT arena. i know , in ur post, u havent dwelled in this concept in its entiriety in terms of weighing the pros and cons of this approach.. im thinking,, if i, as a biotechnologist develop a drug and patent it and am part of the OSP, will it not be easy for other players in the group to just copy without having to invest that much of intellect... plus the issue of the patent.. In the IT field, lets say I develop a software and then its in the OSP, there are people who will make additions, deletions etc to the core code and keep bettering the first version (or may be not).. what im trying to say is.. its more easier a model to follow in IT than to be able to replicate elsewhere, esp in BT.. all this said.. i read some place that OSP is begining to take form in some other areas of Biotech such as embryonic research.. AJCL
@ AJCL - You are right - medical research is very different from IT, but there are aspects of it, especially developing vaccines, which I think might be amenable to the open source approach. No patents - people just collaborating and the outcome freely licensed to anybody who'll manufacture. Markets will ensure that it goes at the lowest possible cost to the end consumer. Not sure, but just airing a view ...
Superb comment AJCL.
Hmm its not as easy as we think, AJCL has a point but it'll be great if they can come up with something like this.
Post a Comment