This statement by Bayer CEO sums up everything that is wrong with the multinational pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical companies are singularly focused on profit and so aggressively push for patents and high drug prices. Diseases that don’t promise a profit are neglected, and patients who can’t afford to pay are cut out of the picture. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Read our response:http://ow.ly/sS4Uc
InventHelp’s INPEX is America’s Largest Invention Trade Show. Inventors converge onto Pittsburgh every year to display their inventions and new products in the hopes of meeting companies who are interested in taking on new products for their own companies.
On January 14, Eric S. Lander published an article in the journal Cell celebrating the “heroes” of CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary DNA-editing technology that may be the most important genetic engineering development in decades.
“It’s hard to recall a revolution that has swept biology more swiftly
than CRISPR,” Lander, a biologist at MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute,
noting that, although nearly every molecular biologist is familiar with
the technology that allows scientists to easily disable or change the
function of genes, they are likely unfamiliar with the manpower that
went into its discovery.
“Yet, the human stories behind scientific advances can teach us a lot
about the miraculous ecosystem that drives biomedical progress,” he
continued, “about the roles of serendipity and planning, of pure
curiosity and practical application, of hypothesis-free and
hypothesis-driven science, of individuals and teams, and of fresh
perspectives and deep expertise.”
What Lander failed to recognize in his article—and what many of his
colleagues and commenters on the piece have recently condemned him
for—is that his institute is currently involved in a billion-dollar patent dispute
with the University of California’s Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle
Charpentier of the Helmholtz Center for Infection Research in Germany,
which played a vital role in developing CRISPR-Cas9. Not only did the Cell paper fail to disclose the potential conflict of interest, it significantly minimized the role of Doudna’s lab in advancing the technology.
The 3 Biggest Myths Blinding Us to the Economic Truth
1. The “job creators” are CEOs, corporations, and the rich, whose taxes must be low in order to induce them to create more jobs. Rubbish. The real job creators are the vast middle class and the poor, whose spending induces businesses to create jobs. Which is why raising the minimum wage, extending overtime protection, enlarging the Earned Income Tax Credit, and reducing middle-class taxes are all necessary.
2. The critical choice is between the “free market” or “government.” Baloney. The free market doesn’t exist in nature. It’s created and enforced by government. And all the ongoing decisions about how it’s organized – what gets patent protection and for how long (the human genome?), who can declare bankruptcy (corporations? homeowners? student debtors?), what contracts are fraudulent (insider trading?) or coercive (predatory loans? mandatory arbitration?), and how much market power is excessive (Comcast and Time Warner?) – depend on government.
3. We should worry most about the size of government. Wrong. We should worry about who government is for. When big money from giant corporations and Wall Street inundate our politics, all decisions relating to #1 and #2 above become rigged against average working Americans.
In 1928, famed British economist
John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a
hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need
to worry about making money.
“For the first time since his
creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use
his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which
science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and
agreeably and well.”
We still have thirteen years to go
before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans
are working harder than ever.
Keynes may be proven right about
technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars,
delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make
But he overlooked one big question:
How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions,
so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?
Without such a mechanism, most of
us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings
due to the labor-replacing technologies.
Such technologies are even replacing
knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver
steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.
When more and more can be done by
fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and
owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8
billion in the deal.
This in turn will leave the rest of
us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.
Which will also mean fewer profits for
the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential
consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.
What to do? We might try to levy a
gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute
their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will
be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.
Suppose we look instead at the
patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.
Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of
the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of
$19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology
Instead of shortening the
patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all
patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for
receiving such protection.
Say, for example, 20 percent of all
such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they
In effect, this would be a basic
minimum income for everyone.
The sum would be enough to ensure
everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies
that would free them up from the necessity of working.
Anyone wishing to supplement their
basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most
jobs will pay modestly.
This outcome would also be good for the handful
of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they
have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.
Such a basic minimum would allow
people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby
enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.
We would thereby create the kind of
society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which
no one will need to work.
Famed Austrian-American actress Hedy Lamarr would had turned 100 earlier this month on November 9. (Born Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler, 11/09/1914 - 1/19/2000.)
Did you know the screen legend was also a patent holder? Having fled Europe and an unhappy marriage to an Austrian munitions manufacturer, Lamarr relocated to the United States prior to the outbreak of World War II. In collaboration with avant-garde composer George Antheil, the two used knowledge from their respective fields to patent a “secret communication system.” Their invention was intended to guide a torpedo by remote control to an enemy target, utilizing a novel synchronized frequency-hopping radio signal to prevent any jamming or interference from the enemy.
Figure 7 above depicts the torpedo in action, controlled from a mother ship and spotter aircraft, adjusting course to account for the ocean current and the enemy ship’s evasive maneuvers.
Their innovative system was never adopted during the war, and neither would ever profit from their patent, but their ideas in frequency shifting would later prove instrumental in modern cellular and WiFi communications methods. Both Lamarr and Antheil were later inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2014.
U.S. PATENT #8,610,295: Reclaiming energy from waste water in tall buildings
THINK OF IT AS…Bath water-generated hydroelectricity. This system uses gravity to make electricity from rainwater, grey water and black water as it exits tall buildings. With every flush or turn of a faucet, water rushes down into a turbine, generating power and making you rethink your next goldfish funeral.
Another patent from our 21st year of record-breaking innovation.
According to a new federal database put online last week, pharmaceutical companies and device makers paid doctors some $380 million in speaking and consulting fees over a five-month period in 2013.
Some doctors received over half a million dollars each, and others got millions of dollars in royalties from products they helped develop.
Doctors claim these payments have no effect on what they prescribe. But why would drug companies shell out all this money if it didn’t provide them a healthy return on their investment?
America spends a fortune on drugs, more per person than any other nation on earth, even though Americans are no healthier than the citizens of other advanced nations.
Of the estimated $2.7 trillion America spends annually on health care, drugs account for 10 percent of the total.
Government pays some of this tab through Medicare, Medicaid, and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But we pick up the tab indirectly through our taxes.
We pay the rest of it directly, through higher co-payments, deductibles, and premiums.
Drug company payments to doctors are a small part of a much larger strategy by Big Pharma to clean our pockets.
Another technique is called “product hopping” –making small and insignificant changes in a drug whose patent is about to expire, so it’s technically new.
For example, last February, before its patent expired on Namenda, its widely used drug to treat Alzheimer’s, Forest Laboratories announced it would stop selling the existing tablet form of in favor of new extended-release capsules called Namenda XR.
The capsules were just a reformulated version of the tablet. But even the minor change prevented pharmacists from substituting generic versions of the tablet.
Result: Higher profits for Forest Labs and higher costs for you and me.
Another technique is for drug companies to continue to aggressively advertise prescription brands long after their twenty-year patents have expired, so patients ask their doctors for them. Many doctors will comply.
America is one of few advanced nations that allow direct advertising of prescription drugs.
A fourth tactic is for drug companies to pay the makers of generic drugs to delay their cheaper versions. These so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements generate big profits for both the proprietary manufacturers and the generics. But here again, you and I pay. The tactic costs us an estimated $3.5 billion a year.
Europe doesn’t allow these sorts of payoffs, but they’re legal in the United States because the major drug makers and generics have fought off any legislative attempts to stop them.
Finally, while other nations set wholesale drug prices, the law prohibits the U.S. government from using its considerable bargaining power under Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate lower drug prices. This was part of the deal Big Pharma extracted for its support of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
The drug companies say they need the additional profits to pay for researching and developing new drugs.
But the government supplies much of the research Big Pharma relies on, through the National Institutes of Health.
Meanwhile, Big Pharma is spending more on advertising and marketing than on research and development – often tens of millions to promote a single drug.
And it’s spending hundreds of millions more every year lobbying. Last year alone, the lobbying tab came to $225 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That’s more than the formidable lobbying expenditures of America’s military contractors.
In addition, Big Pharma is spending heavily on political campaigns. In 2012, it shelled out over $36 million, making it the biggest political contributor of all American industries.
Why do we put up with this? It’s too facile to say we have no choice given how much the industry is spending on politics. If the public were sufficiently outraged, politicians and regulatory agencies wouldn’t allow this giant ripoff.
But the public isn’t outraged. That’s partly because much of this strategy is hidden from public view.
But I think it’s also because we’ve bought the ideological claptrap of the “free market” being separate from and superior to government.
And since private property and freedom of contract are the core of the free market, we assume drug companies have every right to charge what they want for the property they sell.
Yet in reality the “free market” can’t be separated from government because government determines the rules of the game.
It determines, for example, what can be patented and for how long, what side payoffs create unlawful conflicts of interest, what basic research should be subsidized, and when government can negotiate low prices.
The critical question is not whether government should play a role in the market. Without such government decisions there would be no market, and no new drugs.
The issue is how government organizes the market. So long as big drug makers have a disproportionate say in these decisions, the rest of us pay through the nose.