Would Big Pharma fund a cure for cancer?

News of the breakthrough in treatment of leukaemia, the T Cell editing technique raises an interesting question.

Last Novermber it was used to save the life of a one year old girl in London.

For some, it raises doubt.  Only yesterday one commentator said "If it worked the pharmaceutical companies would have invested in further trials"

But would they? As one under treatment for leukaemia albeit not the same form on which T Cell editing had been used, I know there is enormous potential for Big Pharma. Every year in the US close to 6000 are newly diagnosed with Chronic Myeloid Leukeamia and the annual treatment cost for each patient has been estimated to be between 100,000 and 150,000 dollars. In a country where around 50 million are without health insurance.

Here in the UK it's a cost born by our National Health Service who pay around  £40,000 annual to Novartis for my drugs.

A group of experts say it's a cost which is not sustainable, rejecting the principle of  justum pretium

"The doctrine of justum pretium, or just price, refers to the “fair value” of commodities. In deciding the relationship between price and worth (or value), it advocates that, by moral necessity, price must reflect worth. This doctrine may be different from the doctrine of free market economies where prices reflect “what the market bears,” or what one is willing to pay for a product. Which doctrine is better? One could argue that when a commodity affects the lives or health of individuals, just price should prevail because of the moral implications."

As I write there's breaking news of FDA approval for Novartis and a new treatment for AML 

It's difficult to forget the smug face of Martin Shkreli or 'Pharma Bro' testing what the market will bear with his company’s decision to raise the price of a lifesaving drug by more than 4,000 percent, from $1,130 to $63,000.

The cost of these drugs can only be supported by the premiums of health insurance companies or here, by a National Health Service being rapidly dismembered by privatisation.

In the developing world Novartis operate what it known as a Shared Value initiative, allowing those in impoverished communities access to their product, but they can only do so becuase of the profit margins on their products. In that many Americans will be unable to access this kind of treatment, it is at the same time bring the problems of the developing world into the neighbourhoods of the American disenfranchised.

The advocates of Shared Value, an idea which comes from Harvard, have argued that corporations can profit by solving social problems. 

This however, is not the only advocacy for applying business to resolve social problems, when we shift the profit motive. Rather than profiting from a purpose, applying profit for purpose. It may be found in the 2007 proposal for a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine and this widely read article on a Mckinsey medum - Re-imagining Capitalism : The New Bottom Line .

'An inherent assumption about capitalism is that profit is defined only in terms of monetary gain. This assumption is virtually unquestioned in most of the world. However, it is not a valid assumption. Business enterprise, capitalism, must be measured in terms of monetary profit. That rule is not arguable. A business enterprise must make monetary profit, or it will merely cease to exist. That is an absolute requirement. But it does not follow that this must necessarily be the final bottom line and the sole aim of the enterprise. How this profit is used is another question. It is commonly assumed that profit will enrich enterprise owners and investors, which in turn gives them incentive to participate financially in the enterprise to start with.

That, however, is not the only possible outcome for use of profits. Profits can be directly applied to help resolve a broad range of social problems: poverty relief, improving childcare, seeding scientific research for nationwide economic advancement, improving communications infrastructure and accessibility, for examples – the target objectives of this particular project plan. The same financial discipline required of any conventional for-profit business can be applied to projects with the primary aim of improving socioeconomic conditions. Profitability provides money needed to be self-sustaining for the purpose of achieving social and economic objectives such as benefit of a nation’s poorest, neediest people. In which case, the enterprise is a social enterprise.'

Believe me, the Harvard advocates are desperate not to hear it nor let anyone else hear it. Price Waterhouse Coopers, who advocate "profit with purpose" would be reminded of the IPR of a project designed to help some of the most vulnerable children, in 'Death Camps'

Where we applied it in Ukraine was set against a background of growing civic unrest focussed on oligarchy and corruption. A crisis which was warned about a decade ago when an economic hit man from Carnegie attempted to undermine a then peaceful revolution.

"Elimination of graft and corruption, and raising the overall standard of living for ALL Ukrainians rather than a few insanely greedy oligarch clans, was the main underlying and implied reason for the Orange Revolution – at least from hundreds of people, activists and otherwise, I talked with on the ground during and after the Revolution. Further, as director for any sort of peace institute, Mr. Aslund is obliged to review the connection between poverty and peace. Peace does not and cannot exist for people in poverty, unless they are harshly suppressed by government or other forces. Poverty is a horrible existence and lifestyle, and is bound to breed violence, not peace."

The US could be headed in the same direction. How far behind are the rest of us?