Patents, politics, "religion," and the medical research industry.

[Cerridwen]

Patents, politics, "religion," and the medical research industry.

Or, how to perpetuate disease, misery and death for profit.

This issue and the way it is addressed, here and elsewhere, has been bugging me for quite some time. That means this will be a long OP so I invite the "short attention span" crowd and those with little time at this moment to click the back button now. No hard feelings. I'll never know unless you make a point of telling me. :)

First, you'll want to know how I define the amorphous "medical research industry." What once history books taught us was the medical research field of physicians and scientists studying and researching the science of medicine for the sake of healing has become a market driven industry used to garner profit from the results of said research.

The myth that was, of god-like men and the occasional woman, in white lab coats searching for the cures of disease for the benefit of all mankind at the expense of their lives and livelihoods permeated many a history textbook and tale and subsequently, our collective consciousness of what science and medicine and research were. We looked up to the great men and women of science on their pristine pedestals composed of objective, altruistic pursuit of healing disease and reducing the physical pain of their fellow man. Such was the myth. The reality is a bit more, er, human.

At various points in history there have been instances of, shall we say, less than altruistic reasons for medical research, discovery, and its subsequent acceptance and dissemination. A few examples for you to research should you be so inclined. There was competition to claim recognition as the discoverer and rightful patent owner of, and therefore the sole recipient of fame and fortune for, as an example, ether. There was resistance to "new" and "unproven" discoveries by the established medical community. See for example Lister, Pasteur, Nightingale and the "germ theory of disease." There was also the "religious" influence of leaders who deemed Biblical passages condemning women to the pain and suffering of childbirth as license to deny alleviation of said pain to women during the birthing process. "Religious" influence, seeking fame and fortune, and resistance to and/or fear of change. The gods of medicine turn out to be human after all.

Fast forward to modern day. To a time when "the market" is embraced as the motivation for innovation and progress. To a time when capitalism is the cure for all that ails the human economic condition. To a time when profit as motive is hailed as the bringer of all things great and holy as we worship at the altar of the almighty dollar, or yen, or pound, or mark, or Euro. The market will decide and as the market is an objective god, only good things and profit will flow from its worship and influence. Is a product or service good or bad? Of benefit or bane? Let the market decide. Profits will tell.

The "medical research industry" no longer bound by the legends and myths of unselfish devotion to science and healing openly embrace the market forces that determine their god-given right to receive the market god's good grace in the form of profit. Educational research facilities can claim patents to restrict the competition for research dollars available for research into cures for disease. Pharmaceutical companies can price medications to bolster their bottom line and stock market standing in the name of that holy of holies, profit and damn the human consequences; "It's just business." Politicians and "religious" leaders can protect the sanctity of the god-forsaken masses from their desire of lives without pain, illness, and disease in the name of the "Biblical God" as interpreted by the "priests" and beneficiaries of the market god's grace.

Meet the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation {WARF}, whose monopolistic hold on patents and their licensing of stem cells

"announced {in March of 2006} that the state of California must sign a legal contract and pay user fees to the foundation if any state-funded scientists want to work with human embryonic stem cells of any kind. Yes, of any kind...."If a scientist develops a research tool, a therapy or some other useful invention stemming from embryonic stem cells," he says, "WARF can step in whenever it wants to and claim a share of the commercial rights." This, of course, inhibits research and commercial investment — a problem only made worse by the foundation's close ties to Geron Corp. of Menlo Park."

I know, I know. "It's just business." "They have a "right" to make a profit." "It's nothing personal." Well, I guess it's not personal if you aren't one of the people who might have benefited from any resultant discovery. And, of course, business and profit trump human suffering. "What's good for business is good for the US." What's good for the US is good for its citizens...or not. All hail the profit-driven market gods.

Meet Geron Corporation of Menlo Park. Those wonderful folks who have only our health and wellness in mind; for a price.

Following that initial contact, Geron funded much of Thomson's successful quest to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells, said Carl Gulbrandsen, WARF's managing director.

The fruits of that investment were apparent with the announcement late Thursday of the FDA's clearance for the trial, which was partly based on Geron's 21,000-page application that described 24 separate animal studies and production of more than five billion cells that will be used in the trial. That kind of work could easily cost the company as much as $100,000.

"They've invested a ton of money and they never would have done that unless they had certain exclusive rights that have given comfort to investors putting money in the company," said Gulbrandsen. {emphasis added}

See? They have only our best interests at heart. If you define heart as profit and our interests as, er, interest earned on investment. I'm so glad the myths and legends of self-sacrifice and selfishness of research and science can finally be put to rest. It gives me a warm glowing feeling...kinda like indigestion flavored with disgust. All hail the market gods.

Lastly, though hardly finally, we have the political/religious plank on the lid of the coffin that is the now dead myth of "science for science's sake" and the neutrality and purity of the market gods. Meet the reagan/bush/shrub religio-political influence and manipulation of science and research for the sake of, er, God's Will and the US Constitution.

First of these is the "religiously" influenced constitutional angle as played out in the courts to deny funding to, in this case, stem cell research.

2. Is this essentially a move by pro-life advocates who are morally opposed to this research?

Greely: There are two cases that were consolidated in this trial. The plaintiffs in both their cases are not pro-life groups. The plaintiff in one case is an established anti-tax group; the plaintiff in the other is a new group that claims to be largely concerned with conflicts of interest and other problems they see in the proposition.

It is interesting, though, that their legal representation is being provided by the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which is very interested in the moral issues around abortion. {emphasis added}

Mix in a little "political capital" as excercised by shrub to block federal funding

President Bush announced in August that he would allow federal financial support of research that uses embryonic stem cells being cultured in laboratories around the world, but would prohibit funding for the development of new lines that involved creating and destroying additional embryos.

and you have the perfect mix of "religion" and politics combining to influence scientific research and deny progress in the fields of healing and curing disease. All hail the "priests" who protect our morals, though not our health, who profess to worship at the altar of the Biblical God as defined by the beneficiaries of the market gods. Amen.

Now, anyone reading this far will probably presume I'm anti-science or anti-scientist or anti-research. Anyone not reading this far will snark at me and I'll know they haven't read this far. ;) I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm one of those silly, silly people who think "religion," politics, profit motive, and the free market should be kept as far away from science as is heavenly possible. I believe that science should be persued neutrally and far removed from cynical influences. I actually think that medicine should be practiced as both art and science and that it should be done so for the benefit of, wait for it, all...human...kind. I honestly think that people trump profits and that the market gods are evil little monsters who represent the ugliest men have to offer. I think that innovation should come from imagination rather than to earn interest on investment and that there are scientists and researchers out there who would welcome such opportunities. I think that there are enough truly gifted and committed scientists out there who will follow their "higher angels" if we keep the market gods chained and gagged in the depths of hell where they so rightly belong.

I know the "reality" of our economic, "religious," and political systems. I just don't agree we need to help perpetuate that "reality" when our health and our lives are at stake. I don't agree that "it's just business" or "it's nothing personal" are valid reasons for people to suffer from disease and pain. I don't agree that "return on investment" is anywhere near a good argument for allowing companies to hold research tools and our very "essence" hostage to patents and licensing. No, really, I don't think patents on DNA are acceptable. Call me crazy.

Though I've pointed out that the myths have always been just that, myths, I'd like to see them and the legends of pure, unadulterated research for the sake of science become the "new" reality.

"It's just business." "Let the market decide." "Business has a 'right' to make profit." I don't fucking think so.

----------------

Following are links to some of the articles and research that contributed to this snarkoleptic attempt at myth busting for the sake of creating a better reality.

http://dnapatents.georgetown.edu/aboutdpd.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent_2.html

http://www.cureparalysisnow.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=149

http://www.geron.com/about/

http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/GenInfo/NewsAndEvents/SpecialPrograms/ScientistOfTheYear/PastSotY/Bios/Weissman.php

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec05/chimeras_weissman-ext.html

http://infocusmagazine.org/1.2/science_society.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Dec_20/ai_n15955150

http://dailyme.com/story/2009012400004221/

http://www.warf.org/contact/staff.jsp?staff_id=76

[Hanse]

1. So, how much have you personally altruistically invested in medical research?

I'm currently working on drugs for malaria, prostate cancer, and heart disease.

Would you like to send me a check?

I'd prefer cash or money order.

[Cerridwen]

2. Didn't read the whole OP, didya?

Once upon a time, in a land right near here, it was the rule rather than the exception, that our tax dollars and contributions to charities funded much research. The idea was to keep profit-mongering out of the halls of science and to let scientists and researchers proceed for the betterment of humanity.

The OP, had you bothered to read through it, argued for a "return to," or more precisely, a creation of those legendary and mythological days in which science is relieved of the burdens of cynicism, politics, "religion," and other non-scientific or non-altruistic influences.

[Hanse]

5. I sped read.

Didn't see much worth to read.

"Once upon a time, in a land right near here, it was the rule rather than the exception, that our tax dollars and contributions to charities funded much research."

And our tax dollars still donate much to research. Moreso, actually, than they did in the past.

"The idea was to keep profit-mongering out of the halls of science and to let scientists and researchers proceed for the betterment of humanity."

The idea was never any such thing.

It's not like charity for scientific research and investment in scientific research are some kind of competitors.

So, have you ever contributed charity for scientific research?

Have you ever even invested in scientific research?

[Cerridwen]

6. "Didn't see much worth to read."

Don't see much worth a reply.

[Hannah Bell]

7. Don't expect those who benefit from the current set-up to do anything but

mock alternatives to it.

Way of the world, & the primary reason change is difficult. Established power doesn't want to give it up.

[Cerridwen]

8. Good point.

It's nice they show themselves. It makes it easier to keep score in future debates.

[Hanse]

9. Four unrelated issues united under a false premise.

Write something better next time.

[Cerridwen]

10. Read for comprehension.

Provide proof rather than assertion.

As it stands, you remind me of the right-wing nuts wailing about the obscenity of SpongeBob SquarePants and the "homosexual agenda."

[Hanse]

14. What, exactly do you want me to prove?

"First, you'll want to know how I define the amorphous "medical research industry." What once history books taught us was the medical research field of physicians and scientists studying and researching the science of medicine for the sake of healing has become a market driven industry used to garner profit from the results of said research. "

As opposed to other industries which aren't involved in garnering profit?

"At various points in history there have been instances of, shall we say, less than altruistic reasons for medical research, discovery, and its subsequent acceptance and dissemination. A few examples for you to research should you be so inclined. There was competition to claim recognition as the discoverer and rightful patent owner of, and therefore the sole recipient of fame and fortune for, as an example, ether."

And?

"There was resistance to "new" and "unproven" discoveries by the established medical community."

Often, there are good reason for resistance to unproven discoveries.

"See for example Lister, Pasteur, Nightingale and the "germ theory of disease." There was also the "religious" influence of leaders who deemed Biblical passages condemning women to the pain and suffering of childbirth as license to deny alleviation of said pain to women during the birthing process. "Religious" influence, seeking fame and fortune, and resistance to and/or fear of change. The gods of medicine turn out to be human after all."

What do Lister, Nightingale and Pasteur have to do with nuts citing Biblical passages? What is this human flaw you're claiming?

"The "medical research industry" no longer bound by the legends and myths of unselfish devotion to science and healing openly embrace the market forces that determine their god-given right to receive the market god's good grace in the form of profit."

I thought your thesis was that it never was that way.

"Educational research facilities can claim patents to restrict the competition for research dollars available for research into cures for disease."

Say what? You can claim patents to make profit off of your own invention. This restrict research dollars into cures for disease. In fact, it promotes research as it encourages outside investment.

"Meet the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation {WARF}, whose monopolistic hold on patents and their licensing of stem cells

'announced {in March of 2006} that the state of California must sign a legal contract and pay user fees to the foundation if any state-funded scientists want to work with human embryonic stem cells of any kind. Yes, of any kind...."If a scientist develops a research tool, a therapy or some other useful invention stemming from embryonic stem cells," he says, "WARF can step in whenever it wants to and claim a share of the commercial rights." This, of course, inhibits research and commercial investment — a problem only made worse by the foundation's close ties to Geron Corp. of Menlo Park.'"

Assuming this is correct, so what? If I invent a new kind of child-proof pill bottle, and all medicines sold using the bottle pay me a royalty, does that mean I'm somehow restricting scientific research, or doing something unethical?

"Meet Geron Corporation of Menlo Park. Those wonderful folks who have only our health and wellness in mind; for a price.


Following that initial contact, Geron funded much of Thomson's successful quest to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells, said Carl Gulbrandsen, WARF's managing director.

The fruits of that investment were apparent with the announcement late Thursday of the FDA's clearance for the trial, which was partly based on Geron's 21,000-page application that described 24 separate animal studies and production of more than five billion cells that will be used in the trial. That kind of work could easily cost the company as much as $100,000.

"They've invested a ton of money and they never would have done that unless they had certain exclusive rights that have given comfort to investors putting money in the company," said Gulbrandsen. {emphasis added}"

That's how investment works. Investment is different from charity. Again, so what?

"and you have the perfect mix of "religion" and politics combining to influence scientific research and deny progress in the fields of healing and curing disease. All hail the "priests" who protect our morals, though not our health, who profess to worship at the altar of the Biblical God as defined by the beneficiaries of the market gods. Amen."

You're conflating two seperate issues. Nobody's making money off of stem cells being banned, it's just a bunch of kooks and their fucked up sense of ethics. Sound familiar?

"Now, anyone reading this far will probably presume I'm anti-science or anti-scientist or anti-research. "

If I search the archives, am I going to find you posting any loony crap about vaccines causing autism, chemtrails, 9-11 conspiracies, or anti-patent crap?

"No, really, I don't think patents on DNA are acceptable."

Well, gee. That wasn't hard.

"As it stands, you remind me of the right-wing nuts wailing about the obscenity of SpongeBob SquarePants and the "homosexual agenda."

As it stands, your post reminds me of right-wing nuts wailing about the evil media corporations conspiring to keep the truth of Obama's birth certificate secret.

[Greyhound]

12. Upton Sinclair nailed your kind;

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

and your entire industry proves it every day.

[Hanse]

16. P.T. Barnum nailed your kind.

:rofl:

[midnight]

3. I'm one of the few in my family who is not in the science field.

When reading this though, I have to say you have captured some of my own personal feelings when trying to navigate medical treatment throught the maze of gatekeepers who seem to be captured more by the "market" than they are by providing medical treatment. I understand that your focus is on research, but both those who use the research and those who preform the research come together in this "market" driven industry. And your right,terms called "market, business, and other's like capitalism, have no business in the world of providing information, research, treatment for the betterment of other's lifes.

[Cerridwen]

4. But, of course.

I had treatment in mind but, as you can see, my post was already so freaking long I had to cut corners some where. :D

I completely agree with you. "...terms called "market, business, and other's like capitalism, have no business in the world of providing information, research, treatment for the betterment of other's lifes."

[cliffordu]

11. K&R.

[Greyhound]

13. That bastard, Salk, taught them the folly of curing disease.

They were just getting the ball rolling with that whole polio thing and he goes and screws it up, but good. Were it not for him and his meddling we would all be getting rich manufacturing million dollar iron lungs & stuff.
:kick: & R

[Cerridwen]

15. With the state of the economy these days, please don't give them

any ideas.

My reply started out as a joke. As I finished typing it I wondered what shortages we'll have to face. *sigh*

[Greyhound]

17. .