Croissants, Leadership & Reflection with
Dr. Daniel Vasella
Jaya Tandon (NE), Associate News Editor
Issue date: 10/20/03 Section: News
The Harbus: Under you, Novartis also instituted a number of programs to reach necessary drugs to people who need them but did not have access to them. Can you elaborate on some of these programs and the reason you initiated them?
Dr. Vasella: We have one program to provide free drugs through WHO for leprosy patients across the world and we will continue it till the disease is eliminated. Then, we have our new malaria drug which we sell at cost to WHO. And we have tuberculosis medication, of which we give around 100,000 treatments per annum for free. Finally, we have a research program for dengue fever and tuberculosis at a dedicated research institute for tropical diseases in Singapore. We also have a drug supply program for indigent patients in developed countries, especially for Gleevec. The reason why we did it is, I would say, fundamentally from the compassion many people have for patients who cannot afford any therapy.
The Harbus: What viewpoint does Novartis subscribe to in the Intellectual Property Rights debate?
Dr. Vasella: There are two aspects to the intellectual property rights debate; one is the concept of intellectual property in general, an absolutely incredible invention which has been applied from early fifteenth century in Venice and which has really set the foundation for innovation, in the sense that any invention that requires resources, time, money, ideas, creativity gets implemented and becomes broadly available only if it is being protected and the inventor can reap a benefit from it. All the investments we are making now, about a billion for one drug, will only be made if the investors believe that one day they can make a profit from them. Without intellectual property rights that hope is gone forever. So basically by undermining intellectual property, you are trading in the long term for the short term benefit.
But the other side is - one has to view it differently in relation to developing countries. We have had patent infringements and copies on the market in many markets of the developing world and there has been really no effort to enforce IPR as long as these products were used for local markets and were not exported to developed countries. So I think that the agreement which has been reached now thanks to the WTO negotiations is beneficial, because it is now putting these countries in the position where they can break or disregard intellectual property provided it is to help their citizens and they are having a severe crisis or situation in their country. So our view is a differentiated one. We believe that intellectual property and patents are essential to maintain the investment in innovation but we also believe that one has to make exceptions in emergency situations where large numbers of people are suffering.
Dr. Vasella: We have one program to provide free drugs through WHO for leprosy patients across the world and we will continue it till the disease is eliminated. Then, we have our new malaria drug which we sell at cost to WHO. And we have tuberculosis medication, of which we give around 100,000 treatments per annum for free. Finally, we have a research program for dengue fever and tuberculosis at a dedicated research institute for tropical diseases in Singapore. We also have a drug supply program for indigent patients in developed countries, especially for Gleevec. The reason why we did it is, I would say, fundamentally from the compassion many people have for patients who cannot afford any therapy.
The Harbus: What viewpoint does Novartis subscribe to in the Intellectual Property Rights debate?
Dr. Vasella: There are two aspects to the intellectual property rights debate; one is the concept of intellectual property in general, an absolutely incredible invention which has been applied from early fifteenth century in Venice and which has really set the foundation for innovation, in the sense that any invention that requires resources, time, money, ideas, creativity gets implemented and becomes broadly available only if it is being protected and the inventor can reap a benefit from it. All the investments we are making now, about a billion for one drug, will only be made if the investors believe that one day they can make a profit from them. Without intellectual property rights that hope is gone forever. So basically by undermining intellectual property, you are trading in the long term for the short term benefit.
But the other side is - one has to view it differently in relation to developing countries. We have had patent infringements and copies on the market in many markets of the developing world and there has been really no effort to enforce IPR as long as these products were used for local markets and were not exported to developed countries. So I think that the agreement which has been reached now thanks to the WTO negotiations is beneficial, because it is now putting these countries in the position where they can break or disregard intellectual property provided it is to help their citizens and they are having a severe crisis or situation in their country. So our view is a differentiated one. We believe that intellectual property and patents are essential to maintain the investment in innovation but we also believe that one has to make exceptions in emergency situations where large numbers of people are suffering.