| 
| 
| |
| Opinion: University Licensing Policy and Global HealthOPINION University Licensing Policy and Global Health by Emily Chase and Mohammed Abdul Basit Khan Most people are aware that the majority of the global burden of disease falls on the developing world. There is much public discussion of the responsibility of more developed countries to help those that are resource-poor. However, little attention is paid to the specific role that universities play in the development and distribution of technologies that can improve global health. Research conducted at universities is one of the main mechanisms to develop new drugs. Ninety-eight percent of the market for pharmaceuticals exists in the developed world. This means that there is an incentive to investigate drugs designed to treat ailments such as cancer and heart disease which primarily affect people in industrialized countries. The result: only ten percent of all health research and development involves ninety percent of the global disease burden. On the global level, a very different set of diseases is responsible for the deaths of millions of people each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS are all significant contributors to morbidity and mortality in many impoverished nations. More than ninety-eight percent of Africans affected by AIDS and more than ninety-three percent of those in “urgent need” worldwide lack access to antiretroviral drug treatment (ARVs). But the problem is not limited to HIV/AIDS. One-third of the world’s population lacks regular access to essential medicines. Because universities often stand to gain funding by developing technology that can be used by pharmaceutical companies in the development of new drugs to treat disease in the industrialized world, there is often a moral conflict that exists with regard to the handling of technologies that could have an impact on diseases in the developing world. This was highlighted in 2001 when public protest forced Yale University to renegotiate the license it had sold to Bristol-Myers Squibb for the AIDS anti-retroviral drug, Stavudine. Under the new agreement, the patent for Stavudine was not allowed to be enforced in developing countries. This allowed for generic production of Stavudine, lowering the price of the drug to less than $55 per year compared to the original $1600. The University of California at Berkeley has designed a Socially Responsible Licensing Policy with the objective of maximizing the social impact of the technologies developed at the university. The fundamental idea behind the policy is that the opportunity cost of “giving away” technology for use in developing countries is low compared to the potential societal benefit. This proactive approach prevents the deaths of thousands of patients before intellectual property policies can become a barrier to access. Philanthropic organizations have also recognized the potential for impact of university research on neglected diseases. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has provided a $42.6 million grant to the Institute for OneWorld Health, a non-profit pharmaceutical company, which will work in partnership with UC Berkeley and Amyris, a new biotechnology company, to research and produce a cheaper version of the anti-malarial drug, artemisinin. While these efforts are steps in the right direction, there is still an enormous need for other universities to follow suit. Innovative licensing agreements and technology transfer policies must be developed at every major research university to fulfill the demand for essential medicines in the developing world. Emily Chase, '06, is a senior at UC Berkeley majoring in Public Health. She is the Director of the Center on Public Health at the Roosevelt Institution at Berkeley. Mohammed Abdul Basit Khan is a fellow in the Center on Public Health at the Roosevelt Institution at Berkeley. This article was published in the Fall 2005 Undergraduate Public Health Advocate.
|
The Roosevelt Institution is a nonpartisan, nonprofit national think tank devoted to bringing students' policy ideas to the policy process. The opinions expressed on this site are exclusively those of its members. DC Headquarters: Roosevelt Institution / 2100 M St NW Suite 610 / Washington, DC 20037 || (202) 833-1359 |