SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Patently Absurd: the Ice Bucket Challenge in Another Context
Social media and the commentariat are abuzz with updates and analysis on the Ice Bucket Challenge, an internet phenomenon where people do some combination of dumping cold water on themselves and donating money, raising over $90 million for the ALS Foundation so far. While the ice bucket challenge has drawn support and
Aug 30, 2014
Social media and the commentariat are abuzz with updates and analysis on the Ice Bucket Challenge, an internet phenomenon where people do some combination of dumping cold water on themselves and donating money, raising over $90 million for the ALS Foundation so far. While the ice bucket challenge has drawn support and criticism from various corners, it's worth pointing out that foundations like the ALS Foundation, which fights "Lou Gehrig's Disease on every front," exist in their current imperfect form because of the structure of patent law.
Felix Salmon argues that donating money to disease-specific charities isn't efficient. Because of government underinvestment in basic research, numerous charities fundraise and funnel money towards specific research. Salmon argues that it would be far more efficient for the government to fund basic medical research instead of having "a grab bag of disease-specific charities competing against each other". 21 percent of the ALS' Foundation's budget goes to fundraising and administration.
Instead of arguing about whether people should or should not donate to the ALS Foundation or similar charities considering their inefficiencies, I want to develop a related point: private foundations shouldn't have to lead basic medical research efforts. Instead, the government should increase the $30 billion that currently goes through the National Institute of Health (NIH), so it can address this underfunded public good.
While NIH does conduct basic research, the U.S. heavily relies on the patent system to encourage private companies to come up with medical innovations. Many people assume that patents are necessary to fund medical research, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Researchers do not need massive financial incentives to do their job - you can simply pay them a wage. That's how the most of the economy functions. Medical patents are nothing more than inefficient government-supported monopolies to help researchers recoup their costs. For example, because people affected by some of the most socially and economically costly medical issues (HIV/AIDS for example) may not be able to pay high prices, there is little incentive for big pharmaceutical companies to conduct the risky research that would do the most good. Patents create the wrong incentives for researchers and the companies that hire them.
The ten largest pharmaceutical companies capture a third of the market, and several have profit margins on the order of 30 percent. Big pharma are big-time oligopolists who spend almost twice as much on promotion as on research and development. That's why Gilead Sciences sells Solvadi for $84,000 even though generics are available for less than $1,000 in Egypt. While some of that money is going to recoup research costs, a significant portion is monopoly rent.
I've followed the back and forth between critics and supporters of the Ice Bucket Challenge. While they may fundamentally disagree about some issues, everyone outside of the pharmaceutical industry can probably agree that the ALS Foundation shouldn't have to lead the fight for basic research. The government should support public goods. Medical patents certainly don't.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Social media and the commentariat are abuzz with updates and analysis on the Ice Bucket Challenge, an internet phenomenon where people do some combination of dumping cold water on themselves and donating money, raising over $90 million for the ALS Foundation so far. While the ice bucket challenge has drawn support and criticism from various corners, it's worth pointing out that foundations like the ALS Foundation, which fights "Lou Gehrig's Disease on every front," exist in their current imperfect form because of the structure of patent law.
Felix Salmon argues that donating money to disease-specific charities isn't efficient. Because of government underinvestment in basic research, numerous charities fundraise and funnel money towards specific research. Salmon argues that it would be far more efficient for the government to fund basic medical research instead of having "a grab bag of disease-specific charities competing against each other". 21 percent of the ALS' Foundation's budget goes to fundraising and administration.
Instead of arguing about whether people should or should not donate to the ALS Foundation or similar charities considering their inefficiencies, I want to develop a related point: private foundations shouldn't have to lead basic medical research efforts. Instead, the government should increase the $30 billion that currently goes through the National Institute of Health (NIH), so it can address this underfunded public good.
While NIH does conduct basic research, the U.S. heavily relies on the patent system to encourage private companies to come up with medical innovations. Many people assume that patents are necessary to fund medical research, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Researchers do not need massive financial incentives to do their job - you can simply pay them a wage. That's how the most of the economy functions. Medical patents are nothing more than inefficient government-supported monopolies to help researchers recoup their costs. For example, because people affected by some of the most socially and economically costly medical issues (HIV/AIDS for example) may not be able to pay high prices, there is little incentive for big pharmaceutical companies to conduct the risky research that would do the most good. Patents create the wrong incentives for researchers and the companies that hire them.
The ten largest pharmaceutical companies capture a third of the market, and several have profit margins on the order of 30 percent. Big pharma are big-time oligopolists who spend almost twice as much on promotion as on research and development. That's why Gilead Sciences sells Solvadi for $84,000 even though generics are available for less than $1,000 in Egypt. While some of that money is going to recoup research costs, a significant portion is monopoly rent.
I've followed the back and forth between critics and supporters of the Ice Bucket Challenge. While they may fundamentally disagree about some issues, everyone outside of the pharmaceutical industry can probably agree that the ALS Foundation shouldn't have to lead the fight for basic research. The government should support public goods. Medical patents certainly don't.
Social media and the commentariat are abuzz with updates and analysis on the Ice Bucket Challenge, an internet phenomenon where people do some combination of dumping cold water on themselves and donating money, raising over $90 million for the ALS Foundation so far. While the ice bucket challenge has drawn support and criticism from various corners, it's worth pointing out that foundations like the ALS Foundation, which fights "Lou Gehrig's Disease on every front," exist in their current imperfect form because of the structure of patent law.
Felix Salmon argues that donating money to disease-specific charities isn't efficient. Because of government underinvestment in basic research, numerous charities fundraise and funnel money towards specific research. Salmon argues that it would be far more efficient for the government to fund basic medical research instead of having "a grab bag of disease-specific charities competing against each other". 21 percent of the ALS' Foundation's budget goes to fundraising and administration.
Instead of arguing about whether people should or should not donate to the ALS Foundation or similar charities considering their inefficiencies, I want to develop a related point: private foundations shouldn't have to lead basic medical research efforts. Instead, the government should increase the $30 billion that currently goes through the National Institute of Health (NIH), so it can address this underfunded public good.
While NIH does conduct basic research, the U.S. heavily relies on the patent system to encourage private companies to come up with medical innovations. Many people assume that patents are necessary to fund medical research, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. Researchers do not need massive financial incentives to do their job - you can simply pay them a wage. That's how the most of the economy functions. Medical patents are nothing more than inefficient government-supported monopolies to help researchers recoup their costs. For example, because people affected by some of the most socially and economically costly medical issues (HIV/AIDS for example) may not be able to pay high prices, there is little incentive for big pharmaceutical companies to conduct the risky research that would do the most good. Patents create the wrong incentives for researchers and the companies that hire them.
The ten largest pharmaceutical companies capture a third of the market, and several have profit margins on the order of 30 percent. Big pharma are big-time oligopolists who spend almost twice as much on promotion as on research and development. That's why Gilead Sciences sells Solvadi for $84,000 even though generics are available for less than $1,000 in Egypt. While some of that money is going to recoup research costs, a significant portion is monopoly rent.
I've followed the back and forth between critics and supporters of the Ice Bucket Challenge. While they may fundamentally disagree about some issues, everyone outside of the pharmaceutical industry can probably agree that the ALS Foundation shouldn't have to lead the fight for basic research. The government should support public goods. Medical patents certainly don't.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.