Global public–private partnerships against neglected diseases: building governance structures for effective outcomes

Buckup, Sebastian

doi:10.1017/s1744133107004392

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…AIDS = acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus. Source : Annual reports and official internet sites of the selected PDPs; Buckup (2008). …”

Section: Are Push Programmes Suitable For Promoting Research Into Negmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?

Mueller‐Langer

2013

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infectious diseases are among the main causes of death and disability in developing countries, and they are a major reason for the health disparity between rich and poor countries. One of the reasons for this public health tragedy is a lack of lifesaving essential medicines, which either do not exist or badly need improvements. In this article, we analyse which of the push and pull mechanisms proposed in the recent literature may serve to promote research into neglected infectious diseases. A combination of push programmes that subsidise research inputs through direct funding and pull programmes that reward research output rather than research input may be the appropriate strategy to stimulate research into neglected diseases. On the one hand, early-stage (basic) research should be supported through push mechanisms, such as research grants or publicly financed research institutions. On the other hand, pull mechanisms, such as prize funds that link reward payments to the health impacts of effective medicines, have the potential to stimulate research into neglected diseases.

show abstract

“…AIDS = acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus. Source : Annual reports and official internet sites of the selected PDPs; Buckup (2008). …”

Section: Are Push Programmes Suitable For Promoting Research Into Negmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?

Mueller‐Langer

2013

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PDPs are effective mechanisms in overcoming strategic behaviour in the complex environment of drug development aimed at developing country health needs (Buckup 2008).…”

Section: Product Development Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PDPs are effective mechanisms in overcoming strategic behavior in the complex environment of drug development aimed at developing country health needs (Buckup, 2008). Nevertheless, important long-term governance issues remain, particularly when PDPs actually start producing medicines for sale, at which time the inherent differences in interest are likely to become more pronounced (Sorenson, 2009).…”

Section: Product Development Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promising Trends in Access to Medicines

Gold¹,

Morin²

2012

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a vast understatement to say that the problem of access to medicines in developing countries is complex. Access is limited by a range of factors including inability to pay, a lack of infrastructure, and corruption in some countries. Surrounding and exacerbating these structural and technological problems is the layer of legal rights created by patents and their licensing that complicate and render more expensive the preparation and delivery of needed medicines, particularly those that need to be adapted to the social, health and cultural environment of developing countries. This article provides a survey of innovative strategies that aim at maximizing the potential of patents to facilitate the development and delivery of medicines against diseases the burden of which falls principally on developing country populations. To understand the context in which strategies are being proposed and implemented, the article reviews the battles over access to medicines beginning in the late 1980s. It then surveys some of the principal suggestions put forward to better direct innovation systems in addressing the critical health needs of the world's majority including advance market commitments, patent buy-outs, prize funds, public-private partnerships and patent pools.

show abstract

“…Greater R&D investment cannot be encouraged by further strengthening intellectual property rights (IPRs), for “a market monopoly incentive is irrelevant when market prospects are absent” ( Trouiller et al 2002 , 2193). In a situation widely described as “market failure” ( Backup 2008 ; Moran and Stevenson 2013 ; Mueller-Langer 2013 ; Trouiller et al 2001 ), and where the traditional profit incentive is seen as inoperative or too uncertain to warrant risky expenditures on research, the key is to create new communities of sharing, to trigger processes of reciprocal exchange that will reactivate the circulation of resources. Actors with the relevant expertise and capabilities—academic institutions, governments, philanthropic organizations and, critically, pharmaceutical companies—must join forces and launch new collaborative ventures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pharmaceutical Commons

Lezaun

Montgomery

2014

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decade, the organization of pharmaceutical research on neglected tropical diseases has undergone transformative change. In a context of perceived “market failure,” the development of new medicines is increasingly handled by public-private partnerships. This shift toward hybrid organizational models depends on a particular form of exchange: the sharing of proprietary assets in general and of intellectual property rights in particular. This article explores the paradoxical role of private property in this new configuration of global health research and development. Rather than a tool to block potential competitors, proprietary assets function as a lever to attract others into risky collaborative ventures; instead of demarcating public and private domains, the sharing of property rights is used to increase the porosity of that boundary. This reimagination of the value of property is connected to the peculiar timescape of global health drug development, a promissory orientation to the future that takes its clearest form in the centrality of “virtual” business models and the proliferation of strategies of deferral. Drawing on the anthropological literature on inalienable possessions, we reconsider property’s traditional exclusionary role and discuss the possibility that the new pharmaceutical “commons” proclaimed by contemporary global health partnerships might be the precursor of future enclosures.

show abstract

Global public–private partnerships against neglected diseases: building governance structures for effective outcomes

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?

Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?

Promising Trends in Access to Medicines

The Pharmaceutical Commons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About