Harnessing the U.S. Taxpayer to Fight Cancer and Make Profits – The New York Times

This New York Times above-the-fold hit piece is designed to support price-based march-in and generally damage Bayh-Dole. It tells us that enemies of B-D obviously plan to engage again and to use drug pricing as their weapon of choice. Engineered by James Love of KEI, it attacks a seemingly successful CRADA partnership, refers to unrealized capital gains as “profit’ (which could be wiped out by a future adverse FDA ruling), misstates NIH’s repeated conclusions that price-based BD march-in is not authorized by BD, factually saying it is now available to curb drug pricing. It is based on the B-D criticisms of “some people” who are opposed to our existing CRADA and BD innovation dynamics. It states that not only are drug prices too high but the consumer of medicinal products that are based indirectly on government funded research or on a CRADA partnerships. Accordingly product consumers” pay twice”. It references the private investor’s “sharp business suits “and “comfort with Wall St and high society. It pejoratively references U Penn and Sloan Kettering. The story’s jump page continuation is headlined; “Taxpayers Finance A Cancer Drug For Private Profit”

This is how are existing innovation ecosystem will be attacked in coming months. If during the approaching session we have to protect our life science grants, NIH, CRADAs and Bayh-Dole itself in the context drug pricing, so be it. We cannot afford sit this one out.  Adding political price controls to existing life science tech-transfer valuation uncertainties can cripple research university basic research, sixty percent of which is life science in nature or by unwinding B-D itself. Selective excerpts from this article will be used against research university federally-funded grants. By tomorrow it will have been forwarded to congressional staff.  They will read it and file it away for future reference. Donald Trump reads the Times front page every day. Let’s hope this story does not provoke a Tweet. In any case we had better read it ourselves and be prepared to refute it.