But the breakthrough is not merely biochemical. Shaunak's team is proposing a new model for the pharmaceutical business. The patent of the transformed drug they have developed is held by non-profit Imperial University. And because their methods are hundreds of millions dollars cheaper than the mammoth development costs of the big pharmaceutical companies - whose spending on marketing and advertising often dwarfs their funding of scientific research - Shaunak and his colleagues can market their vital medicines for infectious diseases at near-giveaway levels, yet still stay in business. How so? By forgoing the profit motive as the ultimate value of their work.
"People in academic medicine have a choice," Shaunak told an Imperial College journal. "They can use their ideas and creativity to make large sums of money for small numbers of people, or they can look outwards to the global community and make affordable treatments for common diseases."
The first drug developed by the team is a new version of interferon, the main treatment for Hepatitis C, a debilitating disease that afflicts 200 million people worldwide. Yet only 30 million can afford the medicine. That leaves the rest to face the chronic liver disease and premature death that the illness inflicts. The cost of Hepatitis C treatment in the UK is approximately $13,000 per patient per year, New Scientist reports. Nor can a cheaper version of the existing interferon be made, because Big Pharma players Hoffman-La Roche and Schering Plough hold patents not only on the drug but also on the standard way of adding the special molecules needed to enhance its performance.
So Shaunak and Brocchini invented a new way attaching the molecules - from the inside, not the outside - that went around the patent restrictions and produced a medicine that "appears to be as effective as the existing product," according to Nature, the leading scientific journal. Their novel methods could also be adapted to extend the effectiveness of "drugs for other conditions such as HIV," at a fraction of current costs, Shaunak told New Scientist. Big Pharma says it costs an average of $800 million to create a new drug; but without the need to produce ever-expanding profits for shareholders or use glitzy ad campaigns to push their pills - or lay out the vast political patronage that Big Pharma dispenses each year to keep its favored politicians sweet - Shaunak says his team can now develop essential medicines for only a few million dollars each.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/011607HA.shtml
Note: http://www.truthout.org...

So he's copying someone elses design and changing the creation process so as to circumvent patent law. He's not creating any new drugs or new treatments, he's just modifying someone elses work.
I'm no real fan of "big pharma", especially when they hold back cheaper alternative drugs for those who can't afford them and quite possibly bury research into cures so they can maintain profits on treatments, but can someone tell me if they have no profit and they go under, who is it who will be developing drugs and treatments in the future?
I'd expect that "big pharma" will be putting a lawsuit together to fight against this new "process" anyway. If all you are doing is creating a new process to pilpher someone elses work, you are not actually creating a new drug. You are stealing. And though there are short term benefits with respect to cost, the long term detriment is a lack of research.
I sometimes wonder if the respondees on these pages are of the opinion that getting around law, law most likely promoted by those who use law for theft, read Big Pharma, are in favour those who buy law, law which by the way is clear and specific in its definition(s), over those who do not break, or even bend said laws.
Modifying the work od another to the betterment of the end consumer is NOT theft! It is exactly what it has been called, modification! Or built upon.
Bt MS’s reckoning improvement is theft.
“… but can someone tell me if they have no profit and they go under, who is it who will be developing drugs and treatments in the future?” Goes to speculation and/or supposition! As well as being a non sequitor.
These mammoth pharmaceutical companies are owned by the same dear gentle folk that own oil, banking, politicians and us, not bloody likely they will go broke.
It is quite likely the lawyer class will profit by bringing suit, but as for the rest of your piffle Mickey...
Why did you bother?
---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]
it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"
lex ferenda
Actualy the ingredients are not a patent and putting sugar in the inside rather then the out, enables him to patent the drug as well. The previous patent by the drug company is just one way the ingrediants were mixed. Mixing it another way is not an infringement. Drug companies do the same thing amongst themselves. How many drugs are under different brand names but are the same drug?.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
I cede the point that this will have short term benefits to generate cheap drugs. We'll have to wait and see whether this brings down any drug companies or if they instead research methods to make drugs that are uncopiable. Or if they run a separate patent that includes this new method of production into their original patents, thus cutting off the supply of cheaper drugs yet again.
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/01/22/pfizer.html">http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/01/22/pfizer.html</a><br />
<br />
"The company said it will close three research sites in Michigan, and two manufacturing plants in New York and Nebraska. It may also sell another plant in Germany and close research sites in Japan and France."<br />
<br />
That's 5 research sites closed. Are the generic brands going to pick up the slack?
I guess it depends on the patent. Drug companies in the USA (the world) has fought the laws in their country allowing Americans from getting Canadian subsidised drugs. I guess this is a case where capitalism verses socialism. They are also retaliating by closing down these plants. It will remain to see if they will profit more on the plants that stay open. It appears to be the same tact used by the OPEC countries.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.