[Ip-health] [Indian Express] Pharmacy or Lab?

[Achal Prabhala]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/23976.html


Pharmacy or lab?

Posted online: Friday, February 23, 2007 at 0000 hrs

-- Patent report fracas showcases a pharma question. Activists can=92t have=
 a monopoly on the answer --

Below the radar of popular discourse but followed closely by the pharmaceut=
ical industry and health activists is a court case in Chennai that explains=
 why it was fortunate that following revelations of a part cut-and-paste jo=
b, the Mashelkar report on patent law has been withdrawn and will be resubm=
itted. Novartis has sued the Indian government for not issuing a patent on =
its anticancer drug, Glivec (also called Gleevec). The government has denie=
d the patent on the ground that Novartis=92s application did not constitute=
 new innovation. Novartis argues this is too narrow an interpretation of pa=
tentability and that it is non-compliant with WTO patent rules. Activists a=
re arguing that granting Novartis the patent will not only kill the cheaper=
 generic option, imatinib, it will also start a chain reaction that will en=
d in Indian generic companies not producing cheaper versions of expensive d=
rugs for the world=92s poor.
The controversial para in the Mashelkar report is on this broad issue =97 i=
t said that incremental innovations, that is, significant improvements on a=
n existing patent, should be patentable. It was only a report, not a law, b=
ut it was already being quoted in patent debates. Had the report received o=
fficial assent, and the issue of a cut-and-paste recommendation come up aft=
er that, India=92s credibility would have been grievously damaged.

As for the issue of granting patents to incremental innovations, three poin=
ts are ignored by radical health activists. First, India=92s pharma sector =
is at a stage where patent protection will increasingly become more importa=
nt. Low cost but first-rate research talent and a solid pharma industry tra=
dition are India=92s advantages =97 we are better placed than China. Claims=
 on patentable incremental innovation can=92t be dismissed. Second, while m=
any generics for difficult diseases are cheaper than patented products, the=
y are still far too expensive for the typically poor person, whether in Ind=
ia or in Africa. So the question of affordability is a bit of a red herring=
. There=92s a universal and huge problem in terms of the poor=92s access to=
 difficult-disease drugs =97 tweaking patent regimes can=92t be the best an=
swer. Third, the charge that India will not be pharmacy to the world is not=
 fully true. Many generics are off-patent anyway. More, if India can be one=
 of the laboratories of the world, it should not be content with being a me=
re pharmacy.

--