We could make faster progress against cancer by changing the way drugs are developed. In the current system, if  a promising compound can’t be patented, it is highly unlikely ever to  make it to market — no matter how well it performs in the laboratory. The development of new cancer drugs is crippled as a result. The reason for this problem is that bringing a new drug to market is  extremely expensive. In 2001, the estimated cost was $802 million; today  it is approximately $1 billion. To ensure a healthy return on such  staggering investments, drug companies seek to formulate new drugs in a  way that guarantees watertight patents. In the meantime, cancer patients  miss out on treatments that may be highly effective and less expensive  to boot. In 2004, Johns Hopkins researchers discovered that an  off-the-shelf compound called 3-bromopyruvate could arrest the growth of  liver cancer in rats. The results were dramatic; moreover, the  investigators estimated that the cost to treat patients would be around  70 cents per day. Yet, three years later, no major drug company has  shown interest in developing this drug. The hormone melatonin, sold as  an inexpensive food supplement in the United States, has repeatedly been  shown to slow the growth of various cancers when used in conjunction  with conventional treatments. Early this year, another readily available  industrial chemical, dichloroacetate, was found by researchers at the  University of Alberta to shrink tumors in laboratory animals by up to 75 percent. However ... dichloroacetate  is not patentable, and the lead researcher is concerned that it may be  difficult to find funding from private investors to test the chemical. Potential anticancer drugs should be judged on their scientific merit, not on their patentability. 
Note: To explore several  cancer cures which have shown dramatic potential,  yet are not being studied for lack of funds due to inability to patent  the process, .  Why are these very promising treatments not being fast-tracked as the  expensive AIDS drugs were? For a top MD's revealing comments on this,. And for why the media won't feature these promising cancer treatments in headlines, . 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment