Is it time to bust the Cipro patent?

Activist Jamie Love accuses the Bush administration of putting corporate profits above public safety.

By Anthony York

Oct. 18, 2001 | In the middle of a public health panic over anthrax, a political fight has broken out between Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Bush administration officials. Schumer has called for the government to begin purchasing generic forms of Cipro -- the antibiotic most commonly used to treat anthrax -- against the wishes of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Cipro manufacturer Bayer AG.

The fight has reignited a pre-Sept. 11 battle between Democrats and the Bush administration, which advocates say is too cozy with the pharmaceutical industry. "We cannot just rely on Bayer to ensure we have a sufficient supply of Cipro," Schumer said in a statement. "First, Bayer can only produce so much Cipro, and we should not put our best response to anthrax in the hands of just one manufacturer. Second, buying Cipro only from Bayer -- who charges a lot more than generic manufacturers would -- means we spend a lot more and receive a lot less. Hopefully, we won't even need to use the Cipro we already have on hand, but if we make arrangements to purchase it from multiple generic drug manufacturers, we'll have it if we need it."

The Canadian government has decided to override Bayer's patent, and allow other companies to produce generic forms of Cipro. Bayer spokesmen condemned the move and said the company was considering legal action. Thompson, meanwhile, remained steadfast in his decision not to lift the patent. In appearances on "The Today Show" and interviews with the Washington Post, Thompson said he would not force Bayer to allow other companies to produce generic forms of Cipro before their patent expires in 2003. "I do not believe we have the legal authority to do so," Thompson told "Today's" Matt Lauer Wednesday. "We're checking that out."

In light of the recent spike in demand, Bayer announced this week it would triple production of Cipro, but remained firm that it alone should retain the right to produce the antibiotic, which has been Bayer's biggest seller for the last several years. Though there were reports Thursday that Bayer was "considering" allowing other manufacturers to produce Cipro to meet the current demand, Bayer spokesman Michael Diehl said earlier this week the company saw "no reason to change as long as we can deliver ... and that's what we're doing." But the New York Times reported Thursday that it would take the company 20 months, working 24 hours per day, to produce the amount of Cipro Thompson says the government needs.

Some public health officials questioned whether it was even necessary to ramp up Cipro production, pointing out that other forms of antibiotics are just as effective as Cipro in treating anthrax. The public would be better served, they argue, through a reeducation plan rather than a tug of war over the Cipro patent. In an interview with the Washington Post, University of Michigan anthrax expert Philip Hanna said, "I don't know how Cipro got labeled in the first place as the drug of choice ... It's a great medicine for a number of different bacteria, but I don't know how it got labeled as the go-to medicine [for anthrax]."

Other experts are even warning that by taking Cipro -- and many people are taking it who probably don't have anthrax at all -- we run the risk of creating a strain of super anthrax that is immune to the antibiotic.

"We are already in a crisis where many pathogens are resistant to front-line medications," said Lawrence Gostin, professor of law and public health at Georgetown University, in an interview with the Associated Press. "This will add to the nightmare of drug resistance."

But Schumer, and other advocates, believe that increasing the supply on Cipro is necessary to quell the public panic about anthrax. One of the loudest voices in the call for the production of generic Cipro is Jamie Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology.

That Love is in the center of this fight should come as no surprise. He has long accused the government of protecting the rights of pharmaceutical companies and their patents at the expense of public health. Love says the administration -- led by Thompson -- and pharmaceutical companies have historically put profit concerns over those of public health in their continued resistance to allow generic AIDS drugs to be distributed in Africa. Sensing a political opportunity, perhaps, Love has joined Schumer in the call for the government to step in and demand the generic production of Cipro -- no doubt to create a precedent to help Love's ongoing fight to make AIDS drugs more readily available.

Salon spoke to Love in his office in Washington Thursday afternoon.

What do you think about Secretary Thompson's position that we should not be creating generic forms of Cipro?

Well, let me get this straight. They say it would be a good idea to have medicine for 10 million people because there are people threatening to use biological weapons to kill millions of people. But Tommy Thompson doesn't think it's a good idea to send the wrong signal on patent rights. This is about the strongest statement I've ever seen as to the power of the idea of a patent. If you can put at risk the welfare of millions of Americans on the grounds you don't want to send the wrong signal on patent rights, that's quite a statement. It's really a new standard.

Next page: The main obstacle in the fight for affordable drugs