About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Court Report | Main | Investors Saw Biotech Rebound Coming »

August 16, 2009

Comments

Greenwood: "[T]he American taxpayer spends $30 billion a year on NIH, and that funds basic research. It doesn't make drugs -- it makes good academic papers."

Wow, that's a remarkable trivialization of the contributions of publically funded research scientists to the development of drugs to teach diseases. Breathtaking, really.

"I keep telling all my liberal friends in the Congress, if you want to cure all of these diseases . . . don't you want this industry to be the biggest private sector, at-risk capital, money magnet in the world?"

If that's the goal, then why not minimize the risk and maximize the profit potential for wealthy investors even further! Deregulate the industry and provide them with 30 years of data exclusivity! Why, I can already smell the sweet aroma of pure profit.

Treat, not "teach."

Dear Noise:

I don't think we want universities to become R&D arms of the pharma (or even the biotech) industries. I remember one of my professors saying "Technology is when you know the answer" - the fun and fulfillment of university research is trying to find out the questions. I think, in his own focused way, that this was Mr. Greenwood's message - the university is not the right place to do drug development. It's just not their mission, and would be a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars.

That causes its own set of difficulties for academic researchers - it's why Rochester lost the Vioxx/Celebrex case, but it's also why biotech needs academics. University scientists discover the targets and the genetic polymorphisms relating to disease; the more mundane (but just as difficult) task is to find and produce a drug based on the university scientists' work.

Two different tasks, two different groups of actors.

But if you want to disparage, we'd be happy to let you do a guest post if you can show how the Grabowski study in Nature was incorrect (that is the basis for Mr. Greenwood's economic argument on the need for 12 years of exclusivity to permit investors to recoup development costs). And don't forget, the biogenerics can always do the safety and efficacy studies themselves, and then they won't need the innovators' data in the first place.

Thanks for the comment.

A method comprising: Suplexing Mr. Greenwood with the assistance of a mechanical limb.

Not anticipated. Whoops I think the government just innovated.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31