[Ip-health] NIH rejection of March-In petition: Comment by Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen

Michael H Davis m.davis at csuohio.edu
Thu Nov 7 09:16:58 PST 2013

The law is clear. These drugs must be placed on the market "on reasonable terms." That is the governing law. It is not just to market but market reasonably. That's what we the public get in return for paying their R&D. If they don't want that statutory restriction they are free to do the R&D on their own nickel.

Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:

I have added this comment from Rob:


Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen

The American people have a right to expect that when their government's
money is spent on pharmaceutical research and development, the resulting
drugs are reasonably priced. The law gives U.S. government agencies the
authority to satisfy this expectation. Unfortunately, the National
Institutes of Health determination in the ritonavir case amounts to a
declaration that the agency has no intention of exercising its authority.
The NIH position is that the only quid pro quo expected of drug companies
selling drugs invented on the public dime is that they place the drugs on
the market. That is flatly unreasonable, and not a decision that will sit
well with the American people. The Secretary of Health and Human Services
should reconsider and overrule this misguided determination.

James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
http://www.keionline.org, KEI DC tel: +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile:
+1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584,   twitter.com/jamie_love
Ip-health mailing list
Ip-health at lists.keionline.org

More information about the Ip-health mailing list