diseases – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Goldman Sachs Analyst Asks Whether Curing Patients Is A Sustainable Business Model

from the better-to-ask-whether-the-traditional-drug-development-model-is-sustainable dept

Pharma companies generally like to give the impression that their business is a win-win kind of thing: you get better, they get sales. But sometimes the mask slips, and the real strategy that lies behind the benevolent exterior is revealed. For example, back in 2014 we wrote about the CEO of Bayer, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, openly admitting it developed medicines for rich patients in the West that can pay high prices, not for those in places like India that need them just as much, but can’t afford them.

Now CNBC has spotted another revealing remark that probably reflects what many in the Big Pharma world say privately. It appears in a report called “The Genome Revolution” about a new generation of treatments based on powerful genomic techniques like CRISPR. They hold out the hope that many diseases can be cured permanently, for example by editing the patient’s DNA to replace genetic code that is causing the problem. The report asks: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?” It goes on to explain the issue here:

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday. “While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.”

That’s a fair analysis. Given the choice between creating a product that cures people after one use, and another that requires a lifetime’s supply, the rational choice for a company is the latter. The analyst’s question, shocking as it is, exposes neatly the tension between what Big Pharma and its shareholders may want — fat, recurring profits — and what patients and society desire — a short course of treatment that results in a complete cure. As genomic medicine continues to progress, that question is likely to be posed more frequently, both behind closed doors, and in public debates. It will also bring with it another one: if curing patients isn’t a sustainable business model for traditional pharma companies, why not find other ways to fund the development of genomic treatments?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+.

Filed Under: business models, cures, diseases, gene therapy, genetic engineering, genetics, health, pharmaceuticals, profits
Companies: goldman sachs

from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-wheat? dept

Wheat blast may not be uppermost in the minds of many Techdirt readers, but as the following explains, it’s a serious plant disease that is spreading around the world:

> Wheat blast is a fearsome fungal disease of wheat. It was first discovered in Paraná State of Brazil in 1985. It spread rapidly to other South American countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina, where it infects up to 3 million hectares and causes serious crop losses. Wheat blast was also detected in Kentucky, USA, in 2011. > > Wheat blast is caused by a fungus known as Magnaporthe oryzae although scientists are still debating its exact identity. There is a risk that wheat blast could expand beyond South America and threaten food security in wheat growing areas in Asia and Africa.

That comes from an interesting site called Open Wheat Blast. It’s been set up by a group of scientists who want to help combat the threat of wheat blast. And as their name suggests, they hope to do that by sharing data as widely as possible:

> To rapidly respond to this emergency, our team is making genetic data for the wheat blast pathogen available via this website and we are inviting others to do the same. Our goal is that the OpenWheatBlast website will provide a hub for information, collaboration and comment. Collectively, we can better exploit the genetic sequences and answer important questions about the nature of the pathogen and disease.

That’s such a self-evidently sensible thing to do, the obvious question to ask is: why isn’t this done routinely — and for human diseases too? In fact, a couple of months ago, 33 global health bodies signed a “Statement on data sharing in public health emergencies,” with particular emphasis on sharing data about the Zika virus:

> The arguments for sharing data, and the consequences of not doing so, have been thrown into stark relief by the Ebola and Zika outbreaks. > > In the context of a public health emergency of international concern, there is an imperative on all parties to make any information available that might have value in combatting the crisis. > > We are committed to working in partnership to ensure that the global response to public health emergencies is informed by the best available research evidence and data

That declaration built on a “consensus statement” that came out of World Health Organization consultation on “Developing global norms for sharing data and results during public health emergencies” in September 2015. One of the summary points spells out the key issue holding back open sharing of key information:

> WHO seeks a paradigm shift in the approach to information sharing in emergencies, from one limited by embargoes set for publication timelines, to open sharing using modern fit-for-purpose pre-publication platforms. Researchers, journals and funders will need to engage fully for this paradigm shift to occur.

As that makes clear, a big problem is the way that results are published, with researchers and publishers more interested in keeping their results under wraps for a while than spreading them widely and quickly. And there’s another issue too:

> Patents on natural genome sequences could be inhibitory for further research and product development. Research entities should exercise discretion in patenting and licensing genome-related inventions so as not to inhibit product development and to ensure appropriate benefit sharing.

It’s a rather sad state of affairs when publishing concerns and patents are getting in the way of producing treatments and cures for serious human diseases that could improve the lives of millions of people. Protecting crops from wheat blast is, of course, welcome, but is it really the best we can do?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: data sharing, diseases, open access, patents, research, wheat blast

DailyDirt: Kill All The Mosquitoes

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Mosquitoes are a serious pest. They spread terrible diseases like malaria and dengue fever, and they’re just generally annoying to people. So it’s no surprise that quite a few methods have been developed to kill them off in significant numbers, if not entirely. There are actually thousands of different kinds of mosquitoes, and some of them are completely harmless to humans. But if we could target just the ones that spread diseases, we could prevent an enormous amount of death and suffering. Is it really safe to drive mosquitoes to extinction? Here are just a few ways we’re trying to do it (regardless of whether we should).

Mosquito-borne diseases kill about a million people each year and have killed more people than war, cancer or heart disease. Releasing a genetically modified mosquito could push these insects to near extinction, and this appears to be a very effective way to kill off mosquitoes. [url]
DDT was once the weapon of choice for killing mosquitoes, but these bugs have developed a resistance to DDT and other chemical pesticides. Researchers are learning more about how DDT resistance develops in mosquito populations, but spraying different chemicals might not be the best solution for controlling mosquitoes. [url]
For a few years, Nathan Myhrvold has been promoting a laser system to shoot mosquitoes. So far, this Death Star for mosquitoes doesn’t seem to be very practical, but zapping insects with lasers is an entertaining idea at least. [url]

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.