Chapter 6- New Alexandrians
While reading this chapter, I kept thinking to myself, where does this fit in? What does this chapter have to do with anything and why did they put it here? Supposedly the New Alexandrians are organizations, individuals, and the like who fathom the importance of “openness.”
An example is the Human Genome Project. It would make sense that the aggregate of the knowledge of millions of scientists and researchers working together would be more effective and efficient than if they were working independently. In the case of this project, it was true. However, Chapter 6 offers evidence that pharmaceutical developments are not advancing at the rate that they should be (or we would expect them to be.) The authors try to explain how software open sourcing is much easier than scientific research. But, shouldn’t they be using software to do the scientific research?
In my notes, I wrote down that competition does not equal innovation. I’m not sure what that means, but what I think I had in mind was that this is the same problem all over again: incentives are not aligned. Pharmaceutical companies are not out to save the world or eradicate every disease. These companies make products to keep you alive enough to sell you more products that solve problems you did not even know you had. Have you ever listened to/read the side effects of sleeping pills like Lunesta, etc.? Seriously, I’d rather lay awake all night than have to deal with memory loss, dizziness, lightheadedness, changes in behavior and thinking, withdrawal, Etc. But, I digress. So, although there is competition, pharmaceutical companies can be profitable without saving the world. University partnerships might be a step in the right direction.
Finally, the last point I have written down is: is law keeping up with society? I would have to say-negative. But has it ever? No. As far as IP rights, there are public policy, ethical, and legal arguments. But seeing as how it’s taken this long to get IP protection where it is now, I don’t think the courts (or congress) are going to rush into any scaling back efforts. So where does that leave us? In the grey area, as usual.
2 comments:
One problem with the pharma industry is that they make medicine for the market. Ther is more money to be made in Viagra and anti-depressants than finding a cure to real diseases. Also, you will never see acure to cnacer, as it is an industry of $50 billion a year.
I can see how open sourcing and collaboration could help in scientific areas. As we have heard in class, it is impossible for any one company to employ the smartest and brightest in all areas. At times, it will be beneficial to access the minds and ideas of others that know more about the area in question. Chuck raises a good point that only drugs that will sell will be developed, but with collaboration being so cheap, those orgs that work on cures would have more access to brilliant minds than ever before.
Post a Comment