Orphan Drugs--Posner's Response to Comments

An amazing number of comments, some however needlessly incivil. A very interesting comment suggests that, if seven years of exclusivity are enough to induce substantial expenditures on developing orphan drugs despite their small market, we should reexamine the need for the 20-year patent term. An even more radical possibility would be to jettison patent protection in favor of some variant of the Orphan Drug approach, a form of intellectual property protection that is much simpler than patent protection. But I recognize the force of the criticisms of the Act in the excellent comment by "SteveSC." Another comment asks whether the alternative uses to which resoiurces would be put if there were no Orphan Drug Act would contribute as much as or more than to social welfare; the commenter says that "it does not seem that a drug like Viagra is nearly as useful as say, one treating cancer." This proposition has great intuitive appeal, but it is (speaking of useful) useful to distinguish between the utilitarian and economic perspectives. Economists generally measure the welfare effects of a new product by willingness to pay rather than by subjective satisfaction (pleasure, happiness, freedom from pain, etc.). From that standpoint, a drug like Viagra that has a huge potential market might be more "valuable" than a drug that treated a cancer from which only a tiny number of people suffer. I am not suggesting that the economic criterion of welfare should be the only one employed by government. But I insist on the relevance of the economic perspective--and here I quote the commenter who said "It is in fact appropriate to ask--ad absurdum--whether an Act resulting in pharmaceutical companies spending billions to find a cure for a disease whose only victim were Bill Gates, instead of spending them on research that might benefit thousands of even millions of Americans, would in fact have negative benefits [for] the rest of us." No offense intended to Mr. Gates; it is nevertheless a worthwhile question.

Comments

[Sally J]

Actually, you're the one who claims it's a serious, even a normal concern. Where is your evidence ?

You could try reading the Wall Street Journal articles that Posner's original post was based on. It details people with Gaucher's disease and other rare diseases who directly benefit from the existence of the Orphan Drug Act.

[Sylvain Galineau]

W, if you are going to jump into an argument you were not part of, please acquaint yourself with the claims being made. It has been suggested earlier that pork was the most likely destination for these monies, and no evidence was ever provided to justify it. Given the spending distribution pattern, I claim that a) more evidence is needed to believe that would be the case b) there is no such evidence and c) therefore it is not a viable argument.

And I stand by it. I really do not care what adjectives you choose to use to qualify it. You are neither an authority nor does anyone need or seek your approval in this matter.

Moreover, it is perfectly reasonable to state that all things being equal and without actual evidence, this budget is actually more likely to be spent on Medicare than pork, the former being 10 times bigger than the latter and in huge need of funding. But it is pretty obvious the person making the argument is choosing the latter out of self-serving rhetorical convenince, to make her case look stronger than it is. Which is understandable since her case has no legs to stand on.

[Matt]

Hello Professors:

In your next column, please consider answering a question on everyone's mind: is it a Christmas tree or a holiday tree?

[Anonymous]

Very nice site! cheap viagra

[Anonymous]

Very nice site!

[Anonymous]

Very nice site! cheap viagra

[Anonymous]

Very nice site!

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Very nice site!

[Anonymous]

شات صوتي

[Anonymous]

yS2UM7

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

[Anonymous]

rozzcN I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats so usefully----
tiffany
links london

[Anonymous]

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

[Anonymous]

Perfect work!

[Anonymous]

Perfect work!

[Anonymous]

Incredible site!