countries
Aaron Nicodemus
The United States has done an about-face this week on the issue of intellectual property rights for Aids drugs, a development welcomed by Aids activists and researchers.
On World Aids Day, President Bill Clinton announced that the US will develop a co- operative approach on health-related intellectual property matters in order for “poor” countries to gain access to affordable medicines.
The announcement means that the anti- retroviral drug AZT, which has been found to reduce mother-to-child transmission of HIV by 50%, could become widely available in countries devastated by the Aids epidemic.
The announcement is a dramatic turnaround from the US government’s position on the issue only six months ago. Earlier this year, Vice-President and presidential candidate Al Gore was caught out by Aids activists for lobbying on behalf of the USpharmaceutical industry. Gore was part of the team that was pressing South Africa not to allow “parallel exports” of generic drugs. At the time, the US was attempting to protect its powerful pharmaceutical industry, which views generic drugs as a threat to profits.
Clinton said in his announcement “the US trade law related to intellectual property [should] remain sufficiently flexible to respond to legitimate public health crises”. He called upon the US trading partners to join his effort “to improve access to medical treatment”. The announcement specifically mentioned HIV- related treatments.
Morna Cornell, director of the Aids Consortium and leading local activist against the previous US position, called the change of heart “a step in the right direction”. She noted that local and international activism on the issue made the US government’s stance untenable.
“It shows the power of popular opinion and people making their voices heard,” she said. “It also is a sign to the American government that there are issues more important than profit.”
A leading Aids researcher was less sure that the victory would translate into tangible benefits for South Africa. “The US is very strict about intellectual property rights, be it McDonald’s or a drug like AZT,” said Salim Abdool Karim, head of the Aids vaccine research for the Medical Research Council.
“Will it mean that South Africa will be allowed to manufacture a generic equivalent of AZT, or at least import generic drugs from other countries? I really can’t see it allowing us to bypass Glaxo-Wellcome’s patent on AZT.”
The latest estimate to provide AZT to every HIV-positive person in South Africa, even with Glaxo-Wellcome’s offer of a 70% cost reduction, is R80-million a year. Abdool Karim said “generic equivalents could reduce that cost significantly”.
Glaxo-Wellcome’s medical director for sub-Saharan Africa, Dr Peter Moore, was cautious in his assessment of the announcement: “If there is a co-operative agreement that provides less expensive drugs while also respecting companies’ intellectual property rights, we welcome it.”
Moore said Glaxo-Wellcome would want to be sure its “rights are guaranteed” under any new agreement on intellectual property rights.