What a Shock! Profits over Life-Saving Innovation

[Guest guest]

[Our drugs companies at it again. It's better to not have research

than it is to lose one penny in sales!]

Patent wars hit life sciences, says study

By Clive Cookson in London

Published: September 24 2008 03:00 | Last updated: September 24 2008 03:00

The drive to accumulate and defend patents is stifling innovation,

particularly in biotechnology and healthcare, according to a

Canadian-led international study.

Gold, a law professor at McGill University in Montreal who

chairs the International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and

Intellectual Property, presented the study's findings in London

yesterday, and called for a more collaborative and trusting approach

in the life sciences.

" The old [intellectual property] approach of the biotechnology

community has failed to deliver on its potential to address disease

and hunger in both developing and industrialised nations. We need to

do better, and the [information technology] world has shown us part of

the solution, " said Prof Gold.

" Look at the way that change has swept through the IT world and

brought benefits to millions. "

The group did not oppose the principle of patent protection for

discoveries. It was concerned at the confrontational way in which

companies and universities amassed and defended as many patents as

possible.

Case studies showed that aggressive patenting was counterproductive.

One example concerned controversial patents awarded to Myriad

Genetics, a Utah-based company, for breast cancer genes. If the

company and opponents in European and North American public health

services had taken a less confrontational attitude, it was suggested,

both sides would have benefited.

Prof Gold said reform of the world's intellectual property laws to

encourage collaboration would not be realistic. Governments could make

more use of existing provisions to enforce licensing and " march-in

rights " when patent holders were behaving unreasonably, but change

would be most effective if it came from the life sciences industry itself.

Attitudes were beginning to change, particularly in pharmaceutical

companies. " I think the leadership is more likely to come from the

pharmaceutical than the biotechnology industry, " he said. " I have

talked to biotech executives who say the message we are giving is the

right one, but [they] cannot afford to say so openly. "

The expert group backed the idea of more public-private partnerships

to share risks during early stages of research, and more patent

pooling during the later stages of development and commercialisation.

" The IT industry does it better because IT encountered the limitations

of the old business model sooner, " he added. " You can see it in the

rise of a sustainable open source movement and in the way companies

like IBM changed their attitude and now license out IP quite liberally. "

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008