The long-term sustainability of crop production depends on the complex network of interactions and trade-offs between biotic, abiotic and economic components of agroecosystems. An integrated arable management system was designed to maintain yields, whilst enhancing biodiversity and minimising environmental impact. Management interventions included conservation tillage and organic matter incorporation for soil biophysical health, reduced crop protection inputs and integrated pest management strategies for enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem functions, and intercropping, cover cropping and under-sowing to achieve more sustainable nutrient management. This system was compared directly with standard commercial practice in a split-field experimental design over a six-year crop rotation. The effect of the cropping treatment was assessed according to the responses of a suite of indicators, which were used to parameterise a qualitative multi-attribute model. Scenarios were run to test whether the integrated cropping system achieved greater levels of overall sustainability relative to standard commercial practice. Overall sustainability was rated high for both integrated and conventional management of bean, barley and wheat crops. Winter oilseed crops scored medium for both cropping systems and potatoes scored very low under standard management but achieved a medium level of sustainability with integrated management. In general, high scores for environmental sustainability in integrated cropping systems were offset by low scores for economic sustainability relative to standard commercial practice. This case study demonstrates the value of a 'whole cropping systems' approach using qualitative multi-attribute modelling for the assessment of existing cropping systems and for predicting the likely impact of new management interventions on arable sustainability.

Australia, like most countries, faces high and rapidly-rising drug costs. There are longstanding concerns about pharmaceutical companies inappropriately extending their monopoly position by “evergreening” blockbuster drugs, through misuse of the patent system. There is, however, very little empirical information about this behaviour. We fill the gap by analysing all of the patents associated with 15 of the costliest drugs in Australia over the last 20 years. Specifically, we search the patent register to identify all the granted patents that cover the active pharmaceutical ingredient of the high-cost drugs. Then, we classify the patents by type, and identify their owners. We find a mean of 49 patents associated with each drug. Three-quarters of these patents are owned by companies other than the drug's originator. Surprisingly, the majority of all patents are owned by companies that do not have a record of developing top-selling drugs. Our findings show that a multitude of players seek monopoly control over innovations to blockbuster drugs. Consequently, attempts to control drug costs by mitigating misuse of the patent system are likely to miss the mark if they focus only on the patenting activities of originators.

Individuals in low‐income countries (“LICs”) often lack access to appropriate medicines. The multi‐disciplinary nature of this problem requires a holistic approach. Whereas, other writings on the topic tend to focus on one or a small number of issues, often from the perspective of a single discipline, this paper seeks to consider the major issues from a multi‐disciplinary perspective. It first considers mechanisms for improving the availability of medicines in LICs, through grants, prizes, treaties, advance market commitments, priority review and product development partnerships to incentivize and fund R&D for neglected diseases. The paper then assesses mechanisms for improving affordability of medicines in LICs, such as differential pricing mechanisms, monopsonies, patent law flexibilities and human rights obligations. Next, the paper reviews mechanisms for improving the efficacy of medicines in LICs, including authentication, criminalization, international and national enforcement and communication and education. Finally, the paper examines mechanisms for improving the obtainability of medicines in LICs, through low‐cost intervention, task‐shifting, efficient regulation, grass‐roots service provision and education. The paper concludes by identifying areas warranting further research.

No abstract

No abstract