Dont's put bottom line above cure
MATT FREHNER THE GATEWAY (UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA)
EDMONTON — If there’s one thing that connotes Canadianness — aside from hockey and igloos — it’s universal medicare. The general assumption is that, despite its shortcomings of long wait times and suspect levels of care, access to health service is a right. But with a new study into a drug with anti-cancer properties, the private economy may become a barrier to further research. This would in turn halt the development of a drug that may very well save lives.
According to a study released in the journal Cancer Cell, University of Alberta scientists may have found a drug that effectively immobilizes brain, breast and lung cancer cells. The drug is already used in other treatments, it’s simple to make and it’s readily available. As a result, pharmaceutical companies have so far been uninterested in funding further study, as its economic prospects are limited.
In the end, we can’t realistically expect “Big Pharma” to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a project from which they’ll likely see no return. It’s not that they’re opposed to curing cancer — it’s just that as a business the bottom line is still paramount. But given this fact, it’s absolutely inappropriate to rely on private corporations to fund this kind of disease research, especially when it has a direct effect on the public good. It leaves the project open to the ebb and flow of the free market and the whim of private interests.
We’ve seen this play out already on a much larger scale with Brazil’s decade-long program that provides free antiretroviral drugs to citizens infected with HIV/AIDS. In the early ’90s, around 20 per cent of adult Brazilians were infected; that number now hovers around 0.6 per cent. But because those infected are becoming immune to the older generic drugs, it’s becoming necessary for the Brazilian government to purchase antiretrovirals that are still under patent. This could cripple the free-drug program, as patented drugs can cost around US$17,000 per person per year — as opposed to several hundred dollars for generic medication. Moreover, if Brazil does decide to produce generic versions of U.S.-patented drugs, they could face economic sanctions.
It’s a lose-lose scenario common in many other countries, reinforced by a policy that some companies engage in called “evergreening.” With this system, they make small changes to drug formulas or dosage methods, effectively allowing them to renew expiring patents in perpetuity. But these companies argue that it’s necessary to keep prices high outside of Africa in order to fund the reduced prices offered to some African countries that are hardest hit by the pandemic.
These are the harsh economic realities of HIV/AIDS medication and research. That is, for corporations to sustain production and development, a certain amount of profit must be made. We’re seeing this unfold in India, where the country’s leading pharmaceutical companies have begun abiding by global patent agreements and are poised to start producing drugs for the American market. The industry, potentially worth US$3 billion per year, could provide a huge injection into India’s economy, while at the same time removing the world’s primary source for low-cost generic drugs.
This is why it’s integral that prosperous governments increase funding to make treatments readily available to all regardless of their status. We must also relax patent laws while in turn assuring that research isn’t susceptible to the fluctuating budgets of big pharmaceutical companies. It’s a hefty goal, to be sure, but not impossible — especially when you consider that the U.S. government spends US$8 billion a month in Iraq. And with all that cash put towards big, sexy bombs, it would be a shame if the U of A’s potential cancer cure went bottom-up over a lack of funding.
