Donald Light disagrees with Working Group Conclusions

Professor Donald Light has written in PLoS Medicine about his concerns about the conclusions of the Working Group led by the Center for Global Development to look at the feasibility of an Advance Market Commitment. The Working Group concluded that such a commitment could be an effective way to stimulate greater private sector investment in the development of new vaccines, and to accelerate their adoption, as a complement to public and philanthropic funding.Professor Light raises a number of questions, which restate his views in a submission he made to the Commission for Intellectual Property In Health in April 2005. The authors of the Working Group Report authors responded to that submission, and that response addresses Professor Light's concerns in detail.In short, Professor Light calls for an alternative in which medical research for neglected diseases is publicly funded, and in which companies that are funded in this way forgo the patent rights. Professor Light is entitled to think that public funding of research would be more cost effective than the market incentives provided by the patent system - but an intellectually coherent view would advocate the same approach for the medicines that are developed for affluent countries. Conversely, if we believe that a mixture of publicly funded research and commercial incentives to develop and deliver medicines is the most effective approach for the health conditions of affluent countries, why wouldn't the same mixture be appropriate for health conditions in poor countries?Professor Light asks: "Which is more likely to lead to better vaccines faster—fierce competition for a big future payoff or cooperative sponsorship and PPPs?" The answer of the Working Group was very clear: both together. That is exactly the combination of resources and incentives which, if combined, is most likely to lead to the rapid development and use of new vaccines. That is the combination that the Working Group advised, and which G8 policy-makers have said they are interested to pursue. There has been no suggestion that donors should, or would, reduce funding for public private partnerships or basic research if that was complemented by an advance commitment to pay for vaccines if and when they are developed. The approach recommended by the Working Group is supported by public private partnerships such as the Malaria Vaccine Initiative and the International Aids Vaccine Initiative.Professor Light is entitled to reach different conclusions from the other members of the Working Group, based on his belief that research and development is cheaper and more effective in the public sector than in the private sector. He is not, however, entitled to allege that other members of the Working Group were influenced by commercial interests, or any goal other than finding the most cost effective way to accelerate the development and delivery of new vaccines. It is unprofessional of Professor Light to make such a suggestion, even if thinly-veiled, and for PLoS to publish without any attempt to verify its truth.