OPINION & EDITORIAL
Abbott dishonors Wisconsin Idea
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Compromise lacking between state, UW (November 7, 2005)
- UW influence can reshape Wisconsin (May 10, 2007)
- President Bush's trip to Latin America disingenuous, selfish (March 8, 2007)
- Problems in city's environment vast (April 26, 2007)
- Help wanted (September 20, 2005)
by Guest Columnist
Monday, May 7, 2007
"[N]ever be content until the beneficent influence of the university reaches every family in the state" were the words of the University of Wisconsin's 10th president, Charles Van Hise. What Van Hise articulated in 1904 developed into the university's famed philosophy, the Wisconsin Idea.
But as any witness to history will tell you, the Wisconsin Idea was never kept only in Wisconsin. Rather, that "beneficent influence" of which Van Hise spoke so proudly has reached every part of the world and impacted it for the better.
For this reason, when our impact in the world is felt negatively, special note should be taken by the UW community and the wrongs of such actions should be fought with an iron will.
Such is the case of Chicago-based pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories.
The relationship that exists between UW, Abbott Labs and the Kingdom of Thailand is unique, but not all that surprising considering the depth and breadth of university research, the buyers looking to profit from that research, and the countries and individuals who need that research for development and progress.
That relationship began as far back as 1994, when the World Trade Organization sat down with member organizations to lay down a set of standards aimed at protecting intellectual property rights in a comprehensive attempt to keep the trading game fair.
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) gave international law a method for preventing illegal profiteering by countries with a penchant for theft. I'm pointing at you, China.
To be fair, today's globalizing world has a certain vulnerability to international crooks and pirates aiming to make off with the undeserved profits for everything from software and business patents to music, movies and books.
Of course, these are not the only things TRIPS protects. One of the most important was certainly the fair and correct production of pharmaceuticals — generic and otherwise.
As would be expected, TRIPS heavily favored America's large pharmaceuticals, Abbott Labs included.
Recent controversy surrounding Abbott Labs has centered on one very special drug called Kaletra.
The AIDS medication provides a second-line drug treatment and is especially important in developing nations, where the AIDS pandemic continues its spread through regions of sub-Saharan Africa and now into India and China. In situations where entire generations of African populations are being eliminated, Kaletra is more than just a significant drug — it is an essential one.
Unfortunately, the drug is not offered at a reasonable price for many struggling nations, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where the average income allows for a dollar or less a day and Kaletra is sold at $500 per patient annually. Kaletra is priced at $7,500 per patient annually in the U.S.
However, in circumstances where a public health crisis exists, TRIPS allows for nations to issue a "compulsory" license in order to produce the drug generically.
Thailand, caught between a growing AIDS crisis (580, 000 infected, with numbers rising rapidly), a status as a so-called middle-income nation, and a drug far overpriced for potential patients, was forced to request a compulsory license.
Abbott Laboratories immediately pulled Kaletra, along with six other drugs, from the Thai market. In doing so, they have unwittingly brought upon themselves the protestation of many around the world, as well as specific members of the university community.
Of the six drugs pulled from Thailand, one, Zemplar, was invented here at the University of Wisconsin by biochemistry professor Hector DeLuca. The drug acts on secondary hyperparathyroidism in people with severe chronic kidney disease.
It has, I assure you, nothing to do with AIDS or Kaletra.
But it has everything to do with the Wisconsin Idea, and the notion that our research should go toward those who need it most when they need it most.
Instead, our research is being used as political leverage in a campaign to curb nations struggling with legitimate health crises from pursuing proper legal course to battle illness.
It is criminal.
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, one of the oldest and most successful technology transfer hubs in the country as well as the organization through which all UW research travels to the outside world, must make our voice heard to Abbott Laboratories.
"I believe it is unfortunate that patients anywhere in the world are denied this wonderful drug because of political reasons," Mr. DeLuca told Abbott in a March e-mail. "I urge you to do everything you can to see to it that this medication is made available in that country and any other country where patients are suffering."
Since January 2007, when Thailand issued its compulsory license, Abbott Laboratories has offered Kaletra at $1,000 — down from $2,200 — per patient annually. Imagine this in a country where the average income falls at roughly $2,168.
Though Abbott has offered to lower the cost of Kaletra, they have yet to reinstate the original 6 drugs withdrawn from the Thai market. With such reckless actions, the fate of compulsory licenses remains in jeopardy and sends a threatening message to other nations wishing to issue licenses to defeat public health crises.
WARF must do the right thing for the Wisconsin Idea and for the benefit of the world. The Wisconsin influence must continue to spread, and any obstacle to its growth is an obstacle to the world's progress as well.
Sundeep Malladi (smalladi@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and history.
Katherine Guerra (kmguerra@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in international studies with a certificate in African studies. She is also lead coordinator of UW's Student Global AIDS Coalition.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 7:50am):
The consumers in the USA already pay the lion's share of the pharmaceutical R & D bill for the entire world. Stealing drugs without paying any of the R &D costs just makes this worse. The legalized theft of intellectual property is still theft and those stolen from will try to slow or stop it.
Temper your political ideas with a bit of economics. If you take the profit out of the pharmaceutical industry's R & D there will be less R & D - no doubt about it.
Then you will moan that no one does any R & D to solve the ills of the world. When that day comes look in the mirror for the villain.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 9:22am):
I agree with the first comment. You must consider economics because all the goodwill in the world will never amount to a new drug without the resources to develop it. Giving away new drugs is like cutting the limbs off of the entity that produces the novel drugs in the first place.
Also, Abbott is only withholding their unreleased NEW drugs... ALL previously released drugs (Kaletra included) are still being distributed, not to mention that Abbott sells many drugs (which are still on patent) below generic prices. Again, only the newest form of Kaletra (which requires no refrigeration) is being withheld and there are pending negotiations between ABT and Thailand gov't.
You are of course entitled to decide what you print, but I would suggest getting all the facts next time if you want to be credible. Companies like Abbott are the best hope for people with AIDS.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 1:32pm):
The idea of "legalized theft" is an oxymoron. If its legal, it ain't theft. And there is no doubt that what Thailand has done is legal.
Its also going to save thousands of lives in Thailand. The fact is, the government had spent MONTHS negotiating for discounts from companies that just stonewalled. In the US, when this happens, we reach for compulsory licenses too (remember the Anthrax crisis?) And what kind of government would you be if you sat by and watched people die for drugs that can be made for pennies a day, foregoing legal means to make medicines affordable, because of the promise of R&D that never comes?
The R&D bit is a canard. (A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, my friends.) No one does R&D for Thailand. All of the world's low and middle income countries are 5-7% of PhRMA's market. Thailand is a speck on that chart. Drug companies routinely refer to countries like Thailand as "ROW" (rest of the world) - and admit, privately if not publicly, that they don't need profits from these countries, and that they don't develop medicines for them either. One drug company recently said that it considered India a market of 50 million people. A billion live there, but only 50 million are rich enough to make companies care. And even then, they're not rich enough to make drugs for them -- they're only rich enough to put in some effort to soak money out of people when you've already come up with the drugs because of the lucrative American market. The other 950 million are collateral damage.
We do need to share the burden of R&D globally, but the best way to do that is for developing countries to use prize funds, not patents, to pay for the development of medicines that are needed for their own populations. And they should leave it to the market to set prices for medicines -- without the monopolies established by patents.
Its true that Abbott is only withdrawing meds that are going to be on the market in the future - but in what sense is that not "withdrawing drugs from Thailand"? Bottom line: Abbott won't reintroduce Zemplar, or any of its other drugs that were under registration, unless the Thai govt backs down.
And it can't, and shouldn't, or it will be letting people die for absolutely no reason but the massive, unconscionable greed of companies like Abbott.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 1:56pm):
You had me until "It is criminal." No, it's not criminal. What laws did they break? It seems like they did everything within the law. You could have said "this is wrong, this is immoral, this is evil" but "criminal" is a technical term that means something specific. I don't mean to get all "grammar police" on you, but it's hard to attract people to your cause with hyperbole. Stick to the facts, offer ideas, but don't name-call.
Anyway, you were saying something about dying children?....
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 2:04pm):
There's no such thing as intellectual property. Think about it. Really.
If I agree with you, do I owe you money?
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 2:45pm):
Although the counter argument to an editorial like this is often the ones stated above, these arguments lack the essential facts as well. First of all, most R&D is done by Universities, not by Pharmaceuticals. When the research is done by public universities, it is funded by federal and state tax dollars. Second, allowing the sale of generic drugs in developing countries will not affect the overall profits of pharmaceutical companies. For example, Sub-Saharan countries account for 0.5% of pharmaceutical sales and the US, European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand account for 95% of sales. Basically, companies like Abbott are not making any money in the developing world because no one can afford the drugs. Even though prices are higher in the developd world, saleries are also exponentially higher. Drugs in the US do not cost 200% of anyone's salary like they do it much of the developing world.
Also, this article is referring to the lawful issue of compulsory licenses. If Abbott has a problem with that, they can take that up with the WTO, but they can't just follow the international law that works in their interest.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 2:51pm):
The guest columnist may have meant "ethically", not legally criminal?
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 3:28pm):
"If its legal, it ain't theft."
I wonder what you'd say if they took your house because the city makes more taxes from a mall. That's legal too.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 3:53pm):
It looks like the authors are from a different planet. They assume that Abbott can develop drugs without any investment. I guess they have a good health coverage here at Wisconsin and they only pay ten-dollar or so for their drugs. They think drugs are almost free like air.
On the other hand, these two authors seem to have a penchant for name calling. It is much easier to do name calling than finding the real problem. The situation is certain people do not have means to pay for the drugs. But Abbott is not a non-profit organization and has many employees. Those employees have families to feed. Possible solution is to bring some non-profit organization into the game. However the most important thing is Thailand government must effectively control the spreading of the disease first.
Someone said Drugs companies don't do R&D. This is probably not the truth. Drugs companies invest heavily on R&D. That is one big chunk of their costs.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 3:53pm):
One, whoever said there is no such thing as IP needs to seriously think over some issues. If I write a book, should you be able to type every word of it down then print off copies and sell them for a few bucks a piece without me seeing any of that money, even though I put all the creative effort in? Should another fast food chain be allowed to call themselves McDonald's and put the golden arches on their signs and windows to get customers who believe they are going into a McDonald's? Obviously not. These are two protections IP brings.
Second, I haven't kept up with this particular issue, so I can't give a detailed analysis on this. However, I do know that a couple of years ago Brazil wanted itself declared as a country with a massive HIV crisis. Brazil's HIV rate is approximately 1% higher than the U.S.' rate. Brazil wanted this status so they could produce generic versions of patented HIV and AIDS drugs on the cheap (since they didn't have to do any of the R&D), then sell them to nations that actually do have HIV crises for relatively cheap. This was not out of humanitarian desire. This is because, without the R&D costs, Brazil could produce these drugs cheaply and still make a nice profit on them.
Now, like I said, I don't know enough about this particular Thai issue to condemn either Thailand or Abbott. But the pharmaceutical industry has reasons to be wary.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 3:55pm):
Ethically criminal? That still doesn't make sense. What is an "ethical law?" Is that different from a normal law? Do I go to ethical jail when I break it?
I thought companies donated money to universities too. Am I wrong?
I don't know. I can't understand local economics, let alone global economics. Common sense says, manufacture some drugs that can save lives. Do it at cost, or take a hit, or use tax dollars. Instead of giving free medical care to prisoners, why not give it to the poor (Riddle me that one, liberals). I really don't understand how giving away free drugs would hurt the big companies. It'd be a tiny fraction of what they make from US markets, and they would have plenty to put toward R&D. And it would be excellent PR. "Our company gives away free medicine to other countries." Even the hippies would be forced to love that.
I like the idea of intellectual property when it comes to science. How can someone have a legal right to a physical process? How can I patent gravity?
John Ferrel (May 7, 2007 @ 6:27pm):
I am always rather amused by the people who view the field of International Law and International Relations solely from an economic standpoint. Most people who take an introduction course in Micro or Macro suddenly consider themselves experts on the way that economics regulate the interactions states have between themselves.
One of the foremost economists in the world and a New York Times best-selling author has posited that abortion has reduced the rate of urban crime, as it has reduced the number of unwanted males which, from a demographic standpoint, is the group most associated with this category of crime. Many people have offered this "economic" proof to justify abortion.
This is not the reason for abortion being an option in the United States, it has to do with one of our fundamental freedoms, the freedom of privacy, also known as that little thing called the 4th amendment. Using the excuse of "economics" as a reason for justifying actions is too narrow minded a view. I challenge the people who claim economic defense for finding an economic advantage to millions of thai children dying. Im sorry, but i have yet to encounter a statistic saying that they are running around thailand raising urban crime rates.
While there can be no doubt that economic considerations frequently do figure intensely into governmental policy, there are a myriad of other factors that must be considered. Few people stop to realize that there are other considerations that need to be adressed regarding the AIDS epidemic. In the current National Security Policy, the AIDS epidemic in the third world is considered a threat to US National Security. It is a global threat, without boundaries and without citizenship. There is always an economic fall-back at the international level. Countries can be bailed out from an economic crisis. I didn't see very much objection regarding bailing out failing markets during the rise of the Asian Tiger Economies. However, there is no coming back from an AIDS epidemic.
John Ferrel
Boston University, '07
International Relations with an emphasis on Foreign Policy in Security.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 6:58pm):
ya wanna talk greed, legal theft and IP?
HOW THE RIAA dodges RICO suits.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070506-riaa-extortion-why-the-only-rico-they-fear-is-suave.html
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 8:00pm):
3:28, that isn't necessarily legal. The use of eminent domain depends on a huge variety of conditions. And, also, they have to pay you fair value for your house. They aren't simply "taking" it. It may be a forced exchange, but it isn't akin to stealing in any sense except in the minds of the farthest out of hippies and libertarians.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 8:09pm):
I feel the issue is more complicated than most of these posts seem to understand. The drug Zemplar was developed here, at UW; the R & D costs came from public money, such as grants from the NIH and NSF, as well as WI taxpayer dollars. Abbott did not incur any R & D costs while developing Zemplar. Instead they likely pay a royalty to WARF for Zemplar's sales.
Furthermore, last year Abbott set a new company record in terms of profit. Somehow if their R & D budgets were tumbling this would be a good argument. But obviously it is not the case.
I would love those of you who previously commented in support of Abbott to answer this: should people die because a medication developed in the United States is not available to them?
To me, this seems to be the bottom line.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 8:16pm):
A couple of clarifications:
1) A country may also issue a compulsory license without negotiating with the patent owner for a "public non-commercial use"; a "national emergency" is not required (TRIPs Art. 31(b)). It should be noted that the ability to issue compulsory licenses was a small concession to developing countries, which had to agree to many provisions that were not in their interests when signing on to TRIPs. The U.S. and most other developed countries were also once rampant infringers of intellectual property, which helped many of them nurture the technology industries they have today. To ask today's developing countries to mature without the same freedom to use technologies created in other countries is somewhat hypocritical.
2) As mentioned in a comment above, the developed world provides 95% of income for pharmaceutical firms, so Thailand's compulsory license will have negligible effects on Abbott's profit margin and R&D expenditures. Also of note, in 2004 Abbott spent almost three times more money on marketing and administration costs than it did on R&D. It would be difficult to argue that dying patients in Thailand should be denied drugs because they can't afford the mark up to cover the cost of Abbott's U.S. marketing campaign.
3) Heat stable versions of antiretrovirals, like the new version of Kaletra, are crucial in hot tropical climates where refrigeration is sparse.
4) Both pharmaceutical companies and universities (using predominantly public funding) contribute to research and development. Last year Wisconsin received approximately 63% of its research funding from federal sources, 5.1% from industry, and the rest mostly from state taxes, endowments and alumni gifts. Universities generally engage in very high-risk research (i.e. they usually do not produce commercially viable products). They then pass promising drug candidates on to pharmaceutical companies that perform the expensive but comparatively lower risk clinical trials.
While it's important to understand the facts behind the issue, it's also crucial to remember that this hits close to home. A Wisconsin-developed drug is being denied to patients that need it, and we as a community have an opportunity to change that.
P.S. You can't patent physical phenomena, so no, you can't patent gravity.
Anonymous (May 7, 2007 @ 9:50pm):
8:16 pm, excellent points. However, while you are right that the developed powers of the world today used to infringe on IP rights significantly, one of the major turning points in their switch from developing country to developed power was introducing greater respect for national and international IP rights.
One of the necessities for the TRIPs agreement is that the countries that are on the verge right now (namely China, Brazil and to some extent India) seem to have no desire to do so without at least the significant threat occassional symbolic spankings from the U.S., EC and Japan.
Anonymous (May 8, 2007 @ 12:25am):
9:50pm: Thank you. I agree that as nations develop they should be brought into the fold of TRIPs (particularly for the countries you mentioned). But, there are still approximately 140 countries that are being forced to comply with TRIPs even though it's against their better interests. The phase in system for TRIPs as it stands is insufficient to account for different levels of development.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
