This story was making the rounds yesterday, but in case you missed it, the piece is well worth checking out. (via Digby)
It is expected there would be no problems securing funding to explore a drug that could shrink cancerous tumors and has no side-effects in humans, but University of Alberta researcher Evangelos Michelakis has hit a stalemate with the private sector who would normally fund such a venture.
Michelakis’ drug is none other than dichloroacetate (DCA), a drug which cannot be patented and costs pennies to make.
It’s no wonder he can’t secure the $400-600 million needed to conduct human trials with the medicine – the drug doesn’t have the potential to make enough money.
Michelakis told reporters they will be applying to public agencies for funding, as pharmaceuticals are reluctant to pick up the drug.
At roughly $2 a dose, there isn’t much chance to make a billion on the cancer treatment over the long term.
Pharmaceutical research isn’t my area of expertise, but the story explained that DCA has the potential to work wonders, “revitaliz[ing] damaged mitochondria in cancer cells, effectively triggering cell death and shrinking the cells,” which, in turn, means it may effective in treating a variety of types of cancer.
But despite the promise, drug companies aren’t interested. There’s no profit in it. As Digby put it, “And here I thought the pharmaceutical companies had to charge such high prices because of all the research they were doing. Seems without the possibility of future revenue they can’t be bothered. Of course, a cheap cure for cancer would cut into profits in so many ways, wouldn’t it?”
For that matter, it’s also another instance that reminds us of the role the government can play in the sciences.
Ezra explained:
As I’ve said before, using the government’s monopsony and formulary powers to radically reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals probably won’t hurt private R&D much…. But even if it did, pumping those same savings into public sector research and development would more than balance the scales.
So much of the genuinely original molecular research is being done on the NIH’s dime in university labs — but the NIH is underfunded, and so passing on promising and/or risky applications. Pumping cash into their coffers would be a wise, wise investment, and would open promising avenues for research that the drug companies won’t currently pursue.
I’d just add that the free market cannot serve as the be-all, end-all for a society. Values count. The market says this drug is almost worthless, because few stand to make any profit at all. Common sense tells us otherwise.
Of course, it’s a good thing Bush has increased funding for all of that government cancer research, right? Oh wait….