[Ip-health] IP-Watch: Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates Say

[IP-Watch]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates
Say

 <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=1129>
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/wp-trackback.php?p=1129

By Dugie Standeford for Intellectual Property Watch
MANCHESTER, UK - The basic framework of the intellectual property (IP)
regime aims to "close down access to knowledge" rather than allowing its
dissemination, Professor Joseph Stiglitz said at a 5 July lecture on "Who
Owns Science?" Stiglitz, a 2001 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and Professor
John Sulston, a 2002 Nobel Laureate in Physiology/Medicine, launched
Manchester University's new Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation.

Both were highly critical of today's patent system, saying it stifles
science and innovation.

IP is often compared to physical property rights but knowledge is
fundamentally different, Stiglitz said. It is a public good with two
attributes - "non-rivalrous competition" and non-excludability - meaning it
is difficult to prevent others from enjoying its benefits. That runs counter
to IP regimes, which are worse than exclusion because they create monopoly
power over knowledge that is often abused, he said.

Patent monopolies are believed to drive innovation but they actually impede
the pace of science and innovation, Stiglitz said. The current "patent
thicket," in which anyone who writes a successful software programme is sued
for alleged patent infringement, highlights the current IP system's failure
to encourage innovation, he said.

Another problem is that the social returns from innovation do not accord
with the private returns associated with the patent system, Stiglitz said.
The marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available
sooner than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins
a long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns.

The Human Genome Project identified a gene that predicts breast cancer and
that was patented by a US company, Stiglitz said. The actual cost of testing
for the gene is minimal but patients' costs are so high in the US that poor
people are unable to obtain the test, he said. That raises questions about
the equity and fairness of the patent system, he said.

Stiglitz raised two concerns. Developed countries are separated from
developing countries by the disparity in access to knowledge and IP is
making it harder to close the gap, he said, which is why developing nations
in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) called for (and got)
a development agenda. Moreover, IP results in less access to health care, he
said. Generic medicines cost a fraction of brand names but the World Trade
Organization Uruguay Round agreement on IP and trade signed a death warrant
for millions of people by making access to generic drugs more difficult, he
said.

Stiglitz proposed that IP regimes be tailored to specific countries and
sectors. No one believes that the patent system should be entirely
abandoned, but the question is whether other tools, such as prizes or
government funding, could be used to promote access to knowledge and spur
innovation in areas where there are well-defined objectives such as a cure
for malaria, he said. Stiglitz said he is hopeful of reform because many in
the US are seeking changes to the IP system.

Sulston said science can be driven by need and curiosity, which requires a
substantial degree of openness and trust among players. Increasingly,
however, the picture is one of private ownership of science and innovation,
a situation welcomed by governments and investors who control the direction
of research, he said. But the consequence is to funnel science into
profitable areas and steer clear of those that will not make money, he said.

That trend has several consequences, including the neglect of research on
diseases of the poor and the production of unnecessary drugs sold through
high-pressure marketing, Sulston said. There has been a failure of equitable
distribution of the goods of science but the solution is not to have "dull
insistence on equality," he said.

IP is an ideological issue in quarters such as WIPO, Sulston said. Drug
companies see any improvements to the system as weakening it, but no one is
saying they have to give everything away, he said. The system should be a
"good servant" not elevated to a "theistic level," he said.

Counterfeiting has become a major issue, Sulston said. The trend is to link
counterfeiting with IP but they are not connected, he said. If drugs are
sold at their cost of production or just above, counterfeiters would have
little room in which to play. The IP system is causing the production of
bogus products, he said.

Sulston recommended a return to the old practice of splitting research and
development from production, saying mixing the two leads to lobbying and
advertising in R&D. Splitting them allows equitable delivery of products and
can make R&D openly accessible, but only if those who share science also
share its benefits, he said.

That separation appears to be happening to some extent as private companies
such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funnel money into public
health, Sulston said, but he warned against a return to the Victorian days
when healthcare was supported by philanthropy. He urged that global health
issues be coordinated by the World Health Organization, but said it is
underfunded and heavily lobbied by governments and commercial interests.

Sulston also wants more coherent thinking about a biomedical treaty being
examined by the WHO, and greater input from transnational non-governmental
organisations.

Reversing the trend toward privatisation of science is critical, Sulston
said. The world should concentrate on the survival and thriving of humanity,
and exploration of the universe, he said. The outcome, he added, depends to
a great extent on "who owns science."



Intellectual Property Watch

022 791 67 16

info@ip-watch.ch <mailto:csaez@ip-watch.ch>

 <http://www.ip-watch.org>





--