Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
a more recent review, which updated the database to include
which updated the database to include new chemical entities
(nces) to 2004, found that out of 1556 nces, only four were for neglected diseases
(malaria and leishmaniasis) (chirac and torreele 2006). In addition, the poor people
of developing countries are suffering the double burden of communicable and non-
communicable diseases (commission on Intellectual Property rights, Innovation,
and Public Health 2006, 3). this raises the question of why is the focus on
the question of why is the focus on r&D
for the poorest countries so limited. are ethical considerations completely absent
from the decision-making process? the commission on Intellectual Property rights,
Innovation, and Public Health (cIPIH) reported in 2006 that r&D continues to
this raises the question of why is the focus on
raises the question of why is the focus on
that r&D continues to
favour disproportionately the health needs of the latter. It quickly concluded that any
incentive for innovation is pointless if developing countries cannot take part in the
benefit. In other words, neglected people should be the main concern when innovating
new drugs. the crucial link between health and development cannot be understated.
the cIPIH stated that the 'reduction of poverty itself is … one of the most important
contributions to improving health. However, while poverty predisposes people to
ill-health, ill-health also reinforces poverty … Promoting health and promoting
development are complementary—one cannot be achieved without the other' (7).
additionally, why are governments and universities not looking more actively
for ways to remedy this situation? to be sure, there are efforts underway through
civil society such as the Drugs for neglected Disease Initiative and the student-led
Universities allied for essential Medicines.
Detractors of the trIPS agreement point out that the treaty exacerbates the
inequity in pharmaceutical drug gaps. these fears are grounded for a number of
reasons. Prior to the agreement, the pharmaceutical patent regime of developing
states was, for the most part, considerably below the minimum criteria of trIPS.
Many developing states, such as India and Brazil, adopted an explicit policy
to disregard intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical products in order to
facilitate self-sufficiency in the production of basic medicines and to develop a
competitive local industry. Domestic producers, both private and public, could then
supply their populations with basic medicines at prices often considerably lower
than those of the research-based pharmaceutical industry and build a viable industry
through reverse engineering, as in the case of India and Brazil.
critics of the agreement also point out that its implementation results in higher
prices for drugs, widens the access gap between developed and developing countries
to essential medicines, further increases imbalances in the r&D of drug therapies
between developed and developing countries, and threatens the viability of local
industry by negatively affecting local manufacturing capacity. Moreover, longer
patent regimes prevent generic competition that in turn helps make pharmaceuticals
more affordable. Generic competition significantly reduces drug prices, if the correct
market structures are in place. Pharmaceutical product prices fall sharply when
generic entry occurs following the expiration of patents (Scherer 2000). critics also
argue against protecting an industry that has not demonstrated enough social concern
in its activities. as Ken Shalden (2007) points out in a thoughtful analysis about what
is problematic about regulation of intellectual property, such regulation changes
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search