US Drug Firms Eye More Lures for 'BioShield' Work

[Guest guest]

This is window dressing as an excuse to skew the laws

more in favor of Big Pharma and to just transfer more

of public monies to private pockets.

 

 

> DARocksMom

> Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:07:24 EDT

> US Drug Firms Eye More Lures for

> 'BioShield' Work

 

>

> Sens. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and

> Orrin Hatch, a Utah

> Republican, plan to introduce in September a

> " Bioshield II " bill that will

> include protections that did not make it into the

> first law, their staff

> members said.

>

>

http://story.news./news?tmpl=story & cid=571 & ncid=751 & e=1 & u=/nm/20040

> 821/hl_nm/health_bioshield_dc

>

> US Drug Firms Eye More Lures for 'BioShield' Work

>

> Sat Aug 21, 7:53 AM ET

>

> By Susan Heavey

>

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A month after a new U.S. law

> encouraging the

> development of medicines to counter bioterrorism,

> some drugmakers are

> lobbying for more incentives to make products that

> may never be used.

>

> Additional financial lures could include liability

> protection, tax breaks

> and a potentially controversial provision that would

> extend patents on

> blockbuster drugs not related to U.S. efforts to

> fight terrorism.

>

>

> Last month, President Bush (news - web sites) signed

> the so-called

> " Bioshield " bill to spur new drugs and vaccines,

> providing $5.6 billion over

> 10 years to expand private sector research and

> basically guaranteeing

> government purchases of related products.

>

>

> Many bigger drugmakers have been silent on whether

> the bill was enough to

> motivate them because " they don't want to seem

> potentially unpatriotic or

> uncaring, " said Robert Guidos, public policy

> director for the Infectious

> Diseases Society of America, which is pushing for

> additional measures to

> encourage newer, less-resistant antibiotics.

>

>

> Sens. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and

> Orrin Hatch, a Utah

> Republican, plan to introduce in September a

> " Bioshield II " bill that will

> include protections that did not make it into the

> first law, their staff

> members said.

>

>

> Mostly smaller companies have taken up the fight

> over the last few years to

> help build the country's defense against anthrax,

> smallpox and other

> potential bioterror weapons.

>

>

> But U.S. officials must offer more financial

> incentives if they want big

> companies to pitch in, said John Clerici, a lawyer

> who represents several

> pharmaceutical companies.

>

>

> " Fighting a war on terrorism without an Aventis or a

> Pfizer (Inc.) ... at

> your side is the same as fighting a war without

> Lockheed (Martin Corp.) ...

> or Northrup (Grumman Corp.) by your side, " said

> Clerici of law firm McKenna

> Long & Aldridge.

>

>

> Companies large and small say they are particularly

> worried about being held

> responsible for laboratory accidents, contamination

> or adverse reactions to

> drugs and vaccines.

>

>

> WILDCARD PATENT

>

>

> Small biotechs, which often partner with larger

> peers to treat more

> traditional diseases, say they find it tougher to

> link up when it comes to

> therapies to fight bioterror threats.

>

>

> Large companies are " looking for blockbusters, " said

> Vical Inc. Chief

> Scientific Officer David Kaslow, whose company is

> developing an anthrax

> vaccine.

>

>

> Despite partnerships with Merck and Aventis for

> other products, Vical is

> working alone on the vaccine.

>

>

> Small companies -- like VaxGen Inc., a

> California-based firm whose shares

> were delisted from the Nasdaq earlier this month --

> are " research and

> development engines of the market, but they're not

> necessarily experienced

> at bringing products to market, " said Clerici.

>

>

> Ben Daughtry, head of marketing and business

> development at DynPort Vaccine

> Company, a unit of Computer Sciences Corp. that is

> developing several

> vaccines, argues that tiny firms are just as capable

> but " what they don't

> have is the capital assets. "

>

>

> One lure that could attract larger companies is a

> patent provision that

> would give firms longer exclusivity on a popular

> drug in exchange for

> developing one to combat bioterror.

>

>

> For example, if Viagra maker Pfizer made a new

> vaccine, the U.S. Food and

> Drug Administration (news - web sites) could then

> extend the patent on the

> company's lucrative erectile dysfunction drug.

>

>

> Lieberman and Hatch previously proposed similar

> extensions but only for

> smaller companies, Lieberman's staffer said.

>

> The provision could resurface next month, although

> it is not clear whether

> larger firms would benefit, the aide said.

>

> Merrill Goozner, author of " The $800 Million Pill, "

> said patent extensions

> simply shift costs and do not work.

>

> " Why should people who buy those (non-terror) drugs

> ... be taxed to fund

> bioterrism research, " Goozner said. " Isn't that

> something that should be

> funded by the United States government? "

>

> Others say such extensions should require companies

> to use some of the extra

> money to develop more bioterror defense drugs.

>