Glaxo Open Sources Malaria Drug Search Data 80
smellsofbikes writes "GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second-largest pharmaceutical company, is putting thousands of possible malaria-treating drugs into the public domain in a move that the Wall Street Journal calls a 'Linux approach' to pharmaceutical screening. Andrew Witty, who is described as the boss of GSK, says the company thinks it is 'imperative to earn the trust of society, not just by meeting expectations but by exceeding them.' Of course, synthesis or discovery of new chemicals is cheap compared to efficacy and qualification studies, but this is a refreshing change from not handing out any information until after everything is patented."
Re:Start of something (Score:5, Interesting)
Old News (Score:3, Interesting)
makes me wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
_ how much data is released about the drugs? (it's one thing to say this drug is made of this, another to release all necessary information)
_ what drugs are released (is it really the most up to date stuff or is it the drugs that didn't work 15 years ago and are about to go in the public domain anyway)
warren buffet said, "behind every business decision... the good reason, what convinces everybody (we want to save the world), and the real reason (like we need a pr stunt).
if the real intent is common good... awesome, kudos to them.
Re:Its because there's no money in it (Score:3, Interesting)
This was my thought as well, give it away because good PR is worth more than the drugs would be worth.
Nevertheless, I still think it's a positive decision. Would be nice if we could get an open sourced drug for cancer or heart disease by the time I need it, though. (cancer and heart disease being the top two killers in the developed world, and all).
Re:Start of something (Score:3, Interesting)
(perhaps they just don't think they'll ever profit from malaria drugs, etc)
And there you have it. Most of the countries where Malaria is prevalent are not rich countries. However, most people have heard the word Malaria and, even if they don't know what it is or how you get it, this announcement sounds impressive to them. Dengue Fever is also common in many of the areas of the world where Malaria is but they aren't releasing that research. Why? Because no one has heard of it so it's not an effective PR stunt.
Re:Start of something (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be cautiously, quietly applauding from a far corner, until I can figure out what exactly their ulterior motives are. They want my trust, and this is a good first step, but boy-oh-boy do they have an uphill battle before them.
Their motives are pretty clear: malaria effects half a billion people a year, but they are mostly poor and in poor countries. This way Glaxo is able to outsource the R&D, and get good PR (and maybe do some good for the world at the same time).
Meanwhile, their scientists can focus on the very profitable lifestyle drugs (e.g Viagara, Procieca), and drugs for conditions that effect the rich (high blood pressure, depression, diabetes, and the like).
Re:Old News (Score:3, Interesting)
One tablet per child, a clinic to monitor the meds and a community is a bit better off even with bad water.
Less sick children, staying in school for a very low state cost.
They have then have the option to study hard, enter politics, mining and consider the needs for quality local private pharmaceutical enterprise.
Slowly they may reshape their countries into export driven economies pushing the post colonial, cold war loan based slavery.
Hmmmm, long term best just to publish 13,500 chemical compounds from the library.
Drug leads are cheap. this profits glaxo (Score:5, Interesting)
Drug leads are cheap compared to developing a drug. A friend worked at a drug lead company. They got bought by a big pharma. Within 2 years they had produced more drug leads than the pharma could validate in the next decade. So the pharma sold off the company.
Glaxco is no doubt saturated with drug leads too. According to Merk is takes about 400 million dollars to walk one drug all the way through clinical trials. So there's a perpetual winnowing process at every stage with plenty of candidates to step in when an advanced compound is eliminated from further study.
If you sell your drug lead company who do you think buys it? the competition. SO it's not like open sourcing something gives your competition something they could not get otherwise.
Instead it just makes everything more efficient. The only reason for them to sit on those compounds would be if they simply wanted to prevent other from making them out of fear they might compete with their own,but having no intention of perusing them. Which would be pretty shitty business. It does happen of course (Monsanto is often accused of this.).
So Glaxo is being brave and doing the right thing. But it's not costing them anything except possibly competition if one of those abandoned leads turns out to be the one.
Now here' the twist:
Ironically, by opening it up they maybe doing more to supress this compound than if they had kept quiet. The reason is, it's now unpatentable. What other company would invest in it?
Thus short of government development of these. opening it up kills it's further development more effectively than saying nothing.
Re:Start of something (Score:3, Interesting)