If Federally funded companies create cures using stem cells do they

[Maraya1969]

get the same type of patent as a private person or company and are they concessions that must be made so that everyone can benefit from their discoveries instead of only the rich? This was the original question I asked a couple days ago.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2731892

[Fridays Child]

1. Wouldn't surprise me at all, if they get full commercial rights...

...after using taxpayer money to develop treatments. It would be just another form of corporate welfare.

[Ian David]

2. That is a very good point!

Question: If a company creates medicine using stem cells, and doesn't receive federal funding, do they have less of a legal obligation to "play fair" and to share their findings?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. What are these federally funded companies?

The money being discussed is funds towards the NIH, a very important organization and, thanks to Bush, critically underfunded in the last few years. And not just with stem cells.

NIH funds key research at the academic level, doing leading research in areas that biotech companies won't touch because it's not immediately economically profitable. Academic researchers can get patents and profits are shared with the school, and patents can be licensed to pharm companies.

Nobody makes any money and, more importantly, nobody benefits from research if the research doesn't get done.

Bush's excuse about companies doing research is, of course, bullshit.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. It would appear that 'medicines' developed on the taxpayer dollar are

then sold to commerical pharmacy corps. My dog, Crissy, has glaucoma and has been taking Xalatan (Latanoprost)eye drops for over 2 years. These are made for humans and I must get them from a drug store, where they cost anywhere from $75 to $80 for a tiny, tiny bottle. I read on the 'internets' that the compound was discovered at a university funded by federal research dollars, but was then sold to a company that later sold to Pfizer. Cost to manufacutre was something less than $1. I now buy it from Canada at $32 per bottle.


http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=04/01/29/1823245&mode=nested&tid=19


"A second complaint will state that Pfizer Corp. has failed to make a government-supported invention available to the public on reasonable terms by charging U.S. consumers between two and five times as much as Canadians and Europeans for the best-selling glaucoma treatment, Xalatan.

Each of the two medicines was discovered in the performance of federal research grants, awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, gives the Secretary the authority to “march-in” on each patent and license other producers to supply U.S. consumers where necessary to alleviate health needs or because the patent holder has failed to make the invention available on reasonable terms."