In an interview with the UK's Guardian newspaper (here and here), GlaxoSmithKline boss Andrew Witty has made a stunning series of pledges concerning the company's operations in the developing world. According to the Guardian, Witty has said GSK will:

• Cut its prices for all drugs in the 50 least developed countries to no more than 25% of the levels in the UK and US – and less if possible – and make drugs more affordable in middle-­income countries such as Brazil and India.

• Put any chemicals or processes over which it has intellectual property rights that are relevant to finding drugs for neglected diseases into a "patent pool", so they can be explored by other researchers.

• Reinvest 20% of any profits it makes in the least developed countries in hospitals, clinics and staff.

• Invite scientists from other companies, NGOs or governments to join the hunt for tropical disease treatments at its dedicated institute at Tres Cantos, Spain.

As the newspaper correctly notes, all of this will put pressure on the other big pharmaceutical companies to follow suit. If they don't, you can imagine a lot of the world's media asking very hard questions - something that is bound to end up making shareholders very twitchy. No doubt, therefore, many senior executives will be cursing Witty's name internally while, at the same time, employing fixed grins and nodding heads when asked whether they agree with what he has said.

But the bottom line is that Witty is absolutely right. The pharma industry has often been its own worst enemy and it can (and should) do more; not only to improve access to existing medicines in the deveoping world, but also to look for treatments that affect the poorest countries more than they do the richest ones in which pharma companies make their money. This is not just a question of morality, it is about self-interest too. If the pharma companies do it themselves, it means they lessen the risk of others imposing solutions on them. It also demonstrates that far from being negative rights, patents can be extremely positive. And at a time when patents in the pharma industry have never been under so much attack, that has to be a very good thing for the long-term viability of the industry.

What's more, a new and enlightened approach from big pharma may focus more attention on generic companies. Of course their prices are lower, but apart from low prices, what do generics actually give back to society? How many new treatments and medicines do they develop? How much do they invest in R&D? What margins do they operate under? Why do they charge as much as they do? For too long generic companies have been able to paint themselves as white knights, when in fact they exist for exactly the same reason as research-based companies - to make money. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that - and generics do have an important role to play - but let's not pretend that they are something which are they are not. Most generic companies will not be able to take part in the patent pools GSK suggests because they do not have the patents. This is because they do not do extensive R&D. Likewise, I wonder how many will be willing to commit to reinvesting 20% of their profits into infrastructure in the least developed parts of the world. 

It is worth remembering that big pharma is not only under pressure in the developing world. It faces huge pressures in its major markets too. In Europe, the Commission has basically already decided that drugs companies use patents in an uncompetitive way, while in the US the new Obama administration is expected to push for much greater access to generic products.  In such times, it wll do the pharmaceutical companies no harm at all to be seen to be bringing real benefits to the world's most vulnerable communities.

What Witty is suggesting requires imagination and no little courage. But in coming out like this he has provided his rivals with a magnificent opportunity to rewrite the debate on patents in the pharmaceutical industry. They would be mad not to accept the challenge.

Sectors

IP politics, Patents, IP business