The Funding Debate
Facilitating the transfer of new scientificdevelopments to the private sector is one of theaims of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),Maniatis says.
A government agency, NIH provides grants toresearchers to advance scientific knowledge and totransfer new discoveries to private firms. Thefirms then develop drugs and treatments to helpthe public.
Biotechnology companies and universityresearchers can apply for NIH grants that supportbasic and clinical research. The process throughwhich these grants are distributed makes bothequally likely to receive the grants, Maniatissays.
NIH grants are awarded based on peer review, aprocess whereby fellow scientists reviewapplications for grants and decide which projectsseem most imperative.
"If a company comes out on top, then they getthe money," Maniatis says.
But companies rely very little on NIH grants,he adds. "[NIH grants] represent an exceedinglysmall amount of money the company gets," Maniatissays. "Most of the research is internally-fundedand goes toward the development of a drug."
Still, the role of the NIH as an agency whichfunds public research for private profit hasprovoked criticism, especially following a recentseries of articles in the Boston Globe onscientists who have gotten rich in the biotechindustry.
"[The Globe] left the impression that there arefreewheeling scientists out there getting rich,"Maniatis says.
Gilbert also refuted the Globe'scharacterization of the patent system as a way of"looting" the public.
Since the 1970s, when the government owned allpatents on scientific research, scientists, theUniversity and the legal system have come torealize that the system of government funding andpatents is necessary to encourage the discovery ofnew drugs, Gilbert says.
"[The patent system] is very effective with alimited social cost," Gilbert says. "The 10 yearsduring which you can charge what you will is shortcompared to the eternity [for which the public hasaccess to a scientist's invention]."