machines. fascinating. >> we have beenalkingh ronurirr bly vire >> you're watching an interview from book tv recent trip to new york city for book expo america. the publishing industry ag and to have nual trade show. fo more permissio vit book expo arin th >> and now on book tv. washington argues a growing corporate presence in the medical industry yields directions for patience as drug development and research is initiated on a for-profit basis iustver. >> good afternoon. thanks for coming out. this is a very special one. my name is pat thoma

atac ted ursm pleased to see some in the of my colleagues and students. the author harry washington is very special to me. the harrd medical school. we connected. we have been friends eve since. rn thear b h a of, including the national book critics circle of best nfiction of the year. we are so pleased to bring back this year touring with her iant hall ppl he is ssle that the office of diversity.

the professional in residents per gramor the journalm hat i a journalist who morph into an author who gained an international reputation as a medical ethicist. seize immoral thinker. a placehate ndear in actal, she helps explain to us why medicine works the way it does. let's welcome harriet. la >> good afternoon. >> fnn. >> i ge my heartfelt thanks. he mayetin comom

for that i'm very careful. i have lot to say to you. i'm actually going to get to all of it. i shod skip over a slightbeur o i'm not in the habit of reading my slides. your academics. things that hopeful will gaanizu. eas rd our most recent work actually a critique in american medicine a buimprveoneduttiqu coequences a big corporation. and the consequences, and

rseen have been disastrous for american micine i ata.ly w the case history and figures to ow you why things in medicine might not be exactly the way they appear. inheonveional nes aedic jsn lf. go back in time a little bit and think about what madison once was. the age of madison turn once there was. g ty t ve different. the fight against polio which time all the of to remember. comingo soo pronut w n tre.

this kids often have polio. when i get a fever that was always, no, my god. llia occupies the area of culture that aids documents today. estrich, mysterious. e oons. he appeared on the sw. you have this vaccine. everybods gog to wanted. oioe l o ne the american people.

the mentality in american direchtueeng at ski po biologically active molecules and medicine, the research, it was all about reqd nguo urse of study. it attracted a very brilliant people. very competitive, difficult. did not pay very well. these people were not motivated by money. motivated by things was imported to them. all the motivations that drove them. have them very well. under this mality they kept a cresof answers to our medical

>> polio vaccine, many come many important medicatns were advised by researchers who are not concerned abutoney erti telarry ffen eyld havee different. corporations sought to maximize their profits. universities were actually centers of the public interest. frontiers of research that was usn sie attracted people who were drawn to level. a unique role in pursuing the public intest. uveit. made with government subsidies. they could not license the corporation. they cannot sell them to corporations. an i not there anymore.

thk ne s the consequences i dicare and medicaid were finallyassed in the 60's it was very interesting, no provision there. the provision for helping the elderly and infirmhen pour dech uveity researchers working in universities, divides them, they were then marketed there was a real animus against property. ha a hard time when he uner.lly sold hisen t if they knew he had sold his

drug to a profit-making company. not cheap anymore. there is ao high innovation. if you lookt figuresouill ta png tear eras there hundreds of jurors revised every year. hundreds of new drugs. and yet there was a mentality among corporation and among the alleges that is to have their whpering there was eugh. many houses of them. we have all these patents on drugs. ndoosta a coat s we can develop all these drugs. a senator listen to. he began complaining and the floor of congress. 28,000 pents tre

ingevop 'rjust lying there collecting dust. we spent 30 billion collecting. $30,000,001,980. and soonesan. not toas tippees universities and private corporations. initially the law was voted down e russell against it. he will even though he lost, i was not a good ar for m l.in the end of the year theres an emergency congressional session.

reinvigorate. he wanted another t be i partner. he was worried. in opposition to him. gre a call and said take that patent you've earned it. very interesting language. get the bill passed before the's any doubt. thstr that just passed in 1980. at universities can license and sell the patents. 28,000 ten

wellbe off. what happened was the universities and corporations did in the partner a lot of thdioor a.oing so. dt of it had to do with some cultural changes in medicine that resulted. unfortunately medicine began to take on more and more of the coloraon. beeaatts. this meant colboration went down the tubes. we can work together. working on the same problem. we want to have the patent only if we can resell it to drug company x ande reatea soanotha o atn, and intellectual to the intellectual property with them. the collaboration must be done internally, and tomorrow. even then, actually lawsuits.

coorations, now in the receipt. corporations are now paying researchers to do research. so the research departments of many medical schools began to look morand ore lika panta cpo. eyevi fdsrom them for research. research dollars are actually paying the salaries of the researchers. with the loyalties lie now? is the loyalties still with the needs of the american peopl or the loyaies with the corpote need to maxime pa also, what happened to all these new medications? did we end up having thousands of drugs a year instead of ndreds of drugs a year? no. instead we see innovation decline.

onllapimy maewru wer approd last year? there are hundreds of drugs approved in the years before 1980. you're in the ballpark. last year there were 2 the yearef meeaee e lower. 2000. only 15. innotion has dried up. so although this change, this change in medical research was sold to the american people on theasis o havincc ac tew drugs. although strict better? are they better? not exactly. one can generalize. important drughave been developed. noe brf drugsre neitherew erreycat drugs, drugs that have already been devised, tested, approved. the corporations seem to patent

20 year patents about to run out doesn't want to lose its grip on they wanoei it t teivolulnd its weakest lately. when i say slightly, i mean slightly. a change to electron. capatented.

so now we can take a patent out on a gene. on a genetic sequence, on the biologically important lement, which the program so is develoing o. pa tfa tt something is live in is no longer part of patting it. living things have been patented sporadically, but there's often legal challenges. i don't know if any of you have read itout or followed it, the ve rely smert hftr ncen patent. these patents could be affected because of the law passed in 1980. there were other laws, which acal made it much easier. and onmor cty ket human beings, even though his doctor was doing it for research. he told john he was treatinguka.

oot i pl atheiv ingredient. he is a very very pretentious precedents a theme. so i le this o e blthofsience disappears to detachment and society. in other passions, not the patient at the center of medical research. at you mean when i sytt bu vn i am completely staggered to see how expensive they are. protecting the hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment. how did th happ? drug compani erng r very expensive. they say that they are, but they explain they have to be

expensive. they invest so much money in them to markt. i think 2001 oasese enedtharmautical manufacturers claiming that every new public came to the market cost $802 million to bring to market. $2li.ears ago it was upwardsof we $llfoe a vastwhite the medication is so expensive. well, economists look at this and said no, i think the feature itotbin either.illn. the alliance did their o analysis. he said no, it's in the ballpark of 150, to 400 million. so, why idvrs?

ery m 'r spending 2 billion why do these groups devoted to providing low-cost medications to people in the developing world claim it's so much cheaper? we because thereport, the tomasi report isdelae 'splotra co fdrugs, the only flick a very atypical expensed drugs. these are brand-new with no precedent. they are not copycat drugs. they a a new molecular entity, drtotll fntot ose luite rare. most drugs do not fall in that category. they also look in a small subcategory of those drugs, the few drugs for which the in m aheresearchers no money in work in the university and then when the researcher finds

something is worth developing medically, only than the corporation is leading at the partner and trt contrlin th addiorechde r apal eea. ugs, relatively few drugs don't ld the initial support. so they look at th small segment. also the tomasi report did not include tax benefits. the tax eefs of hear nyusin cry d soh fr llar the industry expands, the only do 66 cents. these are really big outfits and they did not get in this report. all said they includean portunity cost. i've never heard of opportunit it allov bhn uamils f tos t financial sense that you pay, vichy surrender to pursue activities in one direction at the expense of another. if i ae$1d ong

otoh ovanu movie ticket. but if i put it in a savings account, i would've earned interest. that interest is my opportunity costs. if i left it in the bank for long enough, the interest woulve doubled from $10 to $20 thaiwell, the drug companies spend the money on research. they could devote the money to global hunger elifndud threinatdve eir funds to drug development. well, it's not that they exist to deal? i mean, they struck companies work to expand out the research of th d or galuer iedv no apply. actually what they receive his tax benefit and actually it's not an investment.

it's part of what they do. it's the cost of bsiness d the opportunity ct is not pl isld temng rei half. so we can see how easily you can solve the 2 billion figure is sothing closer to 100 million that is whytheir claim is yol wth mean. we know somebodyor are close to somebody who can't read the medication, who can't take care, who can't get health insurance or who does not test o treatment te siicant, but here it's quantified to bed. half of the people in this country fall into those categories. even people employed enough health insurance are not immune because mployers hae recently been making n al

m thcof their research -- of their insurance and medication. so now we have outgrown. we understand what this means in terms of drug css thonnc itrd arch organizations doesn't only affect research aswell. this is the thing that i found deeply, deeply troubling and i wonder why people are not more aware of t auliatl nsi and has devoted an entire career, 20 years to a liver cancer drug, a promising drug that is in stage three trial doing exemely well. itwas calti at t lo ry is he acquired a corporate partner and was happy about that because its corporate partner finish work on the truck, have it tested, funded his research. he didn't care he said that when

he partnered with thisgop to lo, yokow, we have to license or sell the patent, this new company. so you no longer own the patent. he said i don't care to cite to devise the drug and hedid. waaota approval, farmer shut it down. they ended the trial. they said we don't want it. we're not going to market it. why didn't they wanted? prm iun ls n a lage ernu i lll and there's not that many drugs for it. they said were not interested anymore. fine. because drug compies were devising ccer drugs thatould compete in the aktp. thn igotoa k er wl be about lester because

of the competition of other drugs comend therefore were going to do something else. it's not worth her time and money see this to the end. so what's a blobudu? 'sal u a k in at least $1 billion in profits a year. we're talking about a $10 million industry. so that is actually coming in yohorthe d. d instthople like perishes lifework is not standstill and the interest of the liver cancer patient around the globe don't factor into the corpore bottom ine. whength 'venenha t thisned ercharts? are the drugs really better? that all depends on your point of view. the drug companies really think so. the look and globally seems

quite clear tey're not et ifkaes ht llol nea numbers across the globe, these are diseases pharmaceutical companies are not at all interested in devising. the answer is very simple. malaria is quite prevalent, affects people who are poor and can't afford the drugs an ths oewmlr not maki t drug device recently. but guess what kind it is? it doesn't treat malaria. it's for wealthy western travelers to avoid contracting malaria. so even when drugs are device for lei pipi d,y novior thretteoke us, wealthy westerners -- relatively wealthy westerners. so i thinkthat's actually a perfect example because there die.m b a handful f rg, one of them is a compound of

arsenic in antifreeze. yodon't have to be a chemist and that at's bad news. you take ibecauseyur spe. drmalyu think it like one in four people actually e from the treatmen moreover, if your disease progresses to the point are you going to it,, then the stke cannot me ck fm th r so, this is a tragedy. however, a truck was found that would not only treat people faithfully,ut w move pele bto gen. this is odrf. e pa-nnoto name right now because i don't want to spend life and medication, but the company decided to call it moring pill. and for a while that doctors and voters can makry good ing

ct rt w dtors oubrer der to make sure that people in west africa had access to the drug. but the only did that for a few years because after a while it was quite clear that no one in the worl could afford the drug. eywee lgey isly wig n ili msueohate drug. but the problem of course is that it's typical the only data for five years, for a short perif time. it wn't nearly enough to treat hal f ep.probey we only abltea ed howard europe from the west african market. the generic name is foreign name. that does not mean you can't buy it. anyone of us can getit. you e prescriti fo s, teno sickness in this country, so why would we need it? it's been marketed for women who

have facial hair. the commercials come on tv sometime if you are embarra bfi hr anyou n'tant se zof am on face. it's $50 a month. so wealthy western women can add this drug for their facial hair. tbuinguntrainle w ri ctotini. that is what is wrong with the corporate partnership. i will take a minute to say that this corporation -- or criticize em heavily. i think they deserve it, but i also wanto note that they are t in business to rom eanot are having a heart wrenching commercials say. they are not in business to maintain or restore health. they are there to make a profit. i do criticize the,butao prtte eltadh

government is involved here. it is our tax dollars to fund the initial research on these molecules to get transferred to corporations. we have an investment here. we end up paying for a drugs ice. th pnfd prices.pme the government should step in. in other countries government has said demint said the company is that the drugs are too expensive. if you are not going to distribute thda e at pe af, e gttake that from you and give it to somebody else. that could be done in this country. but it's interesting as it has done it in this country for rad receivers come a certain telesiont fo cas. s a shared responsibility here. the government has a responsibility to do this. why don't they do it? in my opinion it's not one

cause of a coz relationship between these companies and gior bb imelu ro pharmaceutical companies have the highest number of lobbyists and pay them the most. a lot of them are legislatures. they're cutting deas with lobbyists to make sure drug prices don't go down, to make re we are ckedntyi th are permitted to sell their trivial medications and ignore all problems about deterrence from the government. of course i always have to say a wo about the fatter ewicnsse killers, but for dysfunction we've had 1 drugs since 1996 and it doesn't kill anybody, although almost 600 men have di from taking them? abwhprtieeo sa

lie. so what effect has corporate contl of reseah had in the developingwrd? an w hocilut as a result of taking thalidomide. thalidomide was distributed in europe and that wise distributed pretty widely. ci naslniving pregnant women he problems. but after a while, even though it had been approved in europe, children were warned that these vastating birth effects. there's pictures everywhere, ate heetig.id you codn't vid 'lveppgain. we can never allow this to happen again. thalidomide will never happen again. why weren'tamerican people

affected? the roman 11 people born in this country and thsands abroad. the fda's shining. anke,amlos looked at the test and said the tests were correctly and i'm not convinced the drug is safe. the drugmaker said we are going to sue the fda. whn'yuseseg sno'rt g to gamble the lives of americans. of course americans were saved this tragedy. but what's happened today? the picture on the rate is also caa lssre ofa being witt uss er g thalidomide. thalidomide has been tested only in the developing worlds. only in brazil, nigeria, cuba, parts of africa. it's not tested in the wes this is a horrible eical ss nnlpoea ke ae the rest

because it's for multiple myeloma and leprosy. now what was said to me when asked about it is lpro is mpan lck eelin rio e g em a favor. now, were not because this drug should treat these conditions. they can't afford to and pribrgseical sot for a long time researchers told me that therewas unspoken fact that she didn't test drugs in the tropics are the developing world because people there couldn afford tadte anddt la thr.'tng d tatllo tell you, ms. michael kramer broke that of the 12,333 trucks tested by pharmaceutical comnies have

maerved thsdg ow opn dvpi or r le lin tropics? four. so these people are not a priority for pharmaceutical companies. but they are a priority for so tes ine the rg ro ame searchers in these countries and their slots for social this violation. for example, thalidomide, when it is prescribed to people in the wsfr aodonke thsr multiple myeloma, they are warned that europe women come you've got o take two forms of contraception. there are also off the label with pictreofeme , ununyidn ev maybelline is the most

clear thing. if you don't know what you may wonder what it is your lucky night. so these people are being warned. thvengldn opl cer warrant. for example, the packaging materials in west africa until 1978 was described as really harmless without side ffects. many of these people are the dread. wudfd bdi h ses therchen have been born to women who talk it. it's also a question about whether thalidomideihmn they have all these violations in the developing world. in the developing world, women are told to take to his ipecac at the drug store and buy them. in many countries, contraception is end th hf s

tahes thyca some lived where they are legal. so these are people who are not able to protect th selves and yet this is what the researchers is carried out. oigonwy ththtmighbe a more logical place because huguenin can protect themselves. the wise research carried out in developing worlds? as you can see, the developing world is not the market for thip e bls -- not the problem is, but the decision has been a financial one. the article showed the pharmaceutical companies conduct one in three trials in developing world and i was more than a year ago. canncpei trialsbecaushe faster trials, very important for fda approval othese trials

are higher quality of the developing world. they can get better quality with more experience, more practice r resechers to work r less sole a discourse about providing drugs to the developing world has been well, we can afford to do this. these people are so poor and that's why they can afford health care. theyan't afford drugs and we n rdbe est nefiy giheee s. companies make that claim. we wish he could get free drugs to the people that we can afford it. i say we have a debt here. these countries are saving us a lot of money by allowing us to conduct chp trialsair,heap stt or wveobti to provide them minimally with free drugs to offset the excess risks taken on. in some cases we should not be conducting trials or because sot ouokhe pte hss

aser ad the world with a very consistent pattern, very, very high infeious diseases. and yet all these medication needed are isg. t f i n i s ou be, but there's other things that are much easier and cheaper to administer and give. for example, vaccines in the developing world. vaccines are easy and cheap because you don't have to make the diagnosis ofe oior torovi a a n- al everybody, every child can vaccine. this easy to administer and it's not very expsive necessarily. the bill gates foundation has partnerewith a rgt e chvaesthveng rl we have to keep in mind it's not western vaccines and medications. it does include the fact that

health care practitioners are scarce. you don't want it to ba judge a igio nlwan on esveo be kept in mind. even so they're able to take a $70 vaccine and distribute it for 50 cents and offered in developing worl it's really importanto me the in ons erthe future lies for them. as i talk about how this new model, the current model does not work for patients and it doesn't work for researchers real because researchers from the rest of having te plug wht s to them to have betrayed a pipeline pipeline of new drugs, 15 drug figure, that's not nearly enough to make a profit. they are seeinpates expire. blaheste dru, e e drug companies are

king a great deal of money. they found that one spot to number three sots. the system is not rking ikhahesh bell at he ar tacat developing world presents a huge untapped market for them. instead of thinking in terms of charging this serious price is in bankruptcy people in charging hundreds of thousand of dollars thctt idhey should thinkao ma people in the world can prove it's ultimately lucrative. there are people like the impac find out if he'll were the economists are working on the coerdpindels hatyig as an actor says, and deeply concerned about the effect of the corporations and research ethics. research ethics have been

deformed by corporate control. even thegae gihacoery troubling that cavities, more and more at the five are joining the ethical voice of pharmaceutical companies. i see this as a distinct yonw f someone who's doing things resulted in the death of people, resulting in people going bankrupt trying to pay for drugs, i am not going to be on the cororate board. i'm not going to advise them. gtd iz oug me is many of these people don't think they're doing anything wrong. there is unfortunately a meality among many that we know in our heart that our motives are pure. we are doing go'wr. c brrte s vacfr iz

made that pocket, but it's not going to change theway you took a champion for the underserved. well, itmight. it might easily. being able to say he ns ter dopne trend. another disturbing new chat and is the fact that corporations have discovered the recruiting people for clinical trials takes a lot of time because you have to expla the tra mth isdc has been the mid-1940s that the nuremberg trial when the principal tenet was the voluntary ent bsolutel esseial. it tamore. beginning in 1990 in continuing in 1896 there is a serious credit changes that has allowed researchers to conduct research on people who cannot get their

consent. if you are uonscious and a enedn research. people have been enrolled without your consent. they don't have to ask your consent before the research. they don't have to tl you afterwards. they don't have to obtain your family's consent. it's very ea to look up. if ylou 501.23, there it is in black and a black-and-white come a chilling developments. as for really remained under our radar for too long. i read a few articles about it because i'm deeply concerned oui. stated that he is the spot ended in 2007 with 21 this country. the artificial testing turned out to be harmful. it turned out that more peope heats de t ophotthtad . you would think this is the to a moratorium on research about 10.

instead, a new study would rove whose goal is ed to involve pe,2,0 less t 721 country and canada are testing a wide variety of emergency agents on people who suffer trauma. trauma is anything from a gunshot wound to a car crash to a heartatck 20 le yhe spoke i suddenly disturbed about this, don't you find it disturbing? what i heard most often was just that you have to understand it's very rare. this does not sound thing that i t k 00pll rare. if i kill somebo i very really kill people. wrong is wrong and yet this is ing done andd.

en g w ohe dodo. a troubling aspect is a good look at these consent, a lot of them use the word consent. when you read the descriptions they are united by the flure to providec. ealo o to say yes or no to medical research is a very come very troubling trend in researcand my concern is if we don't stop it now it's going to continue o escalate. i want towind out because i waoev timr ess. alan arby yin my opinion pharmaceutical companies have been responsible for a lot of pain and suffering. a lot of unnecessary heartache. ify t poit ohance to redeem e schemes and research that will benefit people in this

country, if they change their focus to maximizing patterns and profit, to maximize the distribution of their dicaon ow pt an tdosein that way, it the government should exercise itspower and force these companies to do is write if they choose not to the right thing. that iessentially what i have to say to you. anu uc oit [applause] i was told if anyone had questions and i certainly hope a lot of you d, give time for the night ate ver tw years so they can be sure treco the op. >> i think motivation is a big fat they are at once motivation stcomve se aolal

etnoprofit, what happened was profit when down. but it's hard to take us out of that entality. people get angry at the vent. hcti to micine is going to increase your profit. the economy now, today. corporations want to make more ney, but they can only do it if theyrcg. the gotoe money. is there any kind of programmer understanding its little groups like this try and bring awareness about. >> i think it's realymont r pse tak sle e het they are turned about this development because they worked in california wher it a fair approach by constituents by the

law. to happen.g e the issue actually began in the law in my opinion. it's got to be added in the law. the big hurdle is congress becausright now we have legislators who have noten isha en elected by and yet their behavior is rare thing in line with pharmaceutical comp anything against her medical interests. so we have to get rid of these lobbyists. weave ulahan y veplinltr design. they have no place in decisions about medical care and yet they are seeking a huge influence. get rid of those lobbyists unless your legislature know that you are can turned about this. whyo r.po aatopeople, you now, g ye lvit atheup s try

to sell your outrage about this and of course they won't doit on your own. but i think a lot is going to be where it ends because companies are not going do the right thinof t woitn. td bee t ae they would do it alrey. they do it occasionally and sporadically, but not in the consistent way that we need. >> the fdacme uthth attt nl scn cr illness. i was reading a book by kevin trudy and it went in to the statement that she made aot the hring ewenlbyi n congress and the pharmaceutical companies. what do you think about the idea

of revitalizing th oof tusmeints country? because that is revising herbal options in that sort of thing to help with curinillnes >> ia ve iesti es. noarfh fdeor u're alluding to. but the question about alternative complementary is very interesting because earlier today were discussing this very issue. my take on t is tht rne comey direy rne anr rd ovntl medicine. so the demarcation between the two is actually artificial. i actually to me, not to most people, but i actually view it not tween alteativd complementary andcvo l t s w n'rk mthkeyo

distinction. and to know what works, one has to test vigoously. there is one sentiment that they don't have to goto western-style testing inrd to be huf. n'rethta interestingly, neither does germany. if you look at germany they have a long tradition of testing complementary medications. they have a really good body of idence n forome gs at odcoen hitt t andoneo . we need to give rigorous testing or the way "vanity fair" too often promulgated is not evidee. it simply connect does. people see it used to r 20 yes anitwokw atno enc u , ay b accurate. everyone deserves to medication that we have two make sure effective in the states and that's the only way we get them

no matter what kind of indication it i hahlom question. if they are testing it in third world countries for diseases, primarily affect the third world lights up as they come the examplese ntiod, wre's cnmisse doing testing with thalidomide? >> that's a good question. to me, what i asked is, is this the reason it's tested? this the plication they ad ni th eicatons, that would indicate that it's not being used for the application, but that's useful thing to say when someone like masks why you're doing this dangerous reefs urge in brazil d nigeria, but not moti.fathel

ibm lack >> the second question i have is, once the drug becomes extremely profitable, with t impetor ico le tocu w we not know about it because the drug is so profitable? >> ray, the direct consumer as what you're talking about were pharmaceutical comp nesbss phia w oyo e eeoewndg prs their drugs and then they list of side effects and problem way too quickly for mortal man to read or hear. and then what happened you go ur ctorma

nountry, except the u.s.a. new zealand allows space. other countries do not allow this because they understand that bypassing the position these countries arnot informinyou coectlabout e rg. ey owy capitalizing on laypersons lack of information to solve it to them and they also understand it exerts its cue, but several very strong pressure on physicians. physia willrebegs lyau hyad eyrsnd that if you don't get the drunks and then you get from someone else. it's an enormous amount of pressure on them. that's why we should not permit toomesareypinion lyerd ncuhe disease clinics in the disease would drive the revenue tream. that is a perennial questionand

quite frankly i don't know the wheres-e oeti do know that for quonne to answer because i don't think were in much danger of these countries devising a drug that will actually cure disease for and much more direct finaial reason and that is companies are qure i rninreed ithe me finding cures that are vigorous and lengthy. that means finding things like tests, dividing the test for th to, geneticet u aatent no wnb eeeesur test. when tyrone devices tests for hepatitis c, the price in london, and great britain tbesihaie six times as ih

and the lawyers wrote them and said, cease and desist. we own the. so i thi the emphasis on cheaper revenues devising tess, gac ieso, the ads never tell you that if you daily gastric distress, stop living on pizza and hamburgers. they don't say that. they say ke her pillow. iurs.pitalizon pple's en fungus, dysfunction. they've got lf the men in america are convinced that their normal occasional failure to function adds up to a disease, which is very possibl for them. whwe you support the west to find a cure? southworth a while to find a treatment for certain ailments.

it's worth the wait for an cheaper, easier ways to find exploitation. >>o we're on a university campusndn tfe ygoto universities and universities are always striving to make it better by trance erring these corpore entities. should we all be disbanding our technology transferii ko back? i'm asking kimiko back to the time of researchers actually have to make a choice between academia and business and they couldn't actually do both here to ever go back there? >>e c. etwel acdo

ow. it's true the universities made a great deal of money. but unfortunately, demands that does not filter down toep you knowthe op who dot edoneyeed fti eat tca fo so we could repeal, ich i propose to my book. but i'm pretty sanguine about the chance of that happening here do not thagoing to i iz motpptimeso. l itldaod step. we are so afraid of not being progressive, you know, not going forwd. there's this nigerian proverb and this caused enclosing. what it says is that it's not ins w o. for h make money. we have forgotten the center and i think would be a very good idea to basically put it worse

between and universe tease nothatay en ob noio be. what we do? i think the government should exert very serious pressure and pharmaceutical comp aeneas. i think they should first exert pressure -- for as the fithipdlled all the lobbyists. then the government should exert very strong pressure on these companies to partner wth groups like doctors without borders, which they've done occasionally and successfully to do it o thalmpfuwimngmdllke says instead of charging money for drug, you are going to be paid for your drug based on how many lives you saved, based on th abeaul del beusu how. t ditra die, but in that model,

every life is saying. saving te life of americans and africans. so that's a wonderl mode the government should put pressure on companies ify t gome ouor hoonun the scum of the civil those models. that's what i think should have been. >> how correcting methodology inc. the maive amount o ne industry? >> the news industry. not medical journals, the news industry? >> yes. because if you look at the nightly news, zero, i mean, two thirds of it are drug whilppot? you think that has an impact? >> i'm not in a position to say for sure. i would be surprised if it doesn't, but in terms of mass

drec m a all its forms that can be a corrupting influence if you're not careful. and of course the news mediaare ural, so it variefr blion to ucati. u spuheho atogswng ee journals and depend it and then you have publishers who are -- i don't know, what do they call the guy in l.a. from pe wclngha erlfund ffon newcoverage there? it varie but definitely advertising is a way of exerting pressure. in my career i've seen it done. i have seen a case whe we ran asesof erngus pressure. i can't speak with any authority about how often it happens, but i'm sure it does happen.

what has been them ibhol lt or f drug comny, lawyers on the government? >> they love it. [laughter] most hoeul? uldn't shaeo fuac homfr the drug companies at all. i think i've actually been very smart. they have not reacted much to it. which is the smart thing to do. they want to draws little tention to it as psible. th've sentlly gned it h inthm. e ul aspect of what i've discovered is certainly seen that these partnerships between drug companies and groups like the ones i've mentioned, doctors without borders,he gates fout

thevasvrlong, but we have seen examples of them doing what they set out to do and i really dream of a world in which these companies will work hand-in-hand with these groups who are devoted to the health of heymdu and we getsome o noaithak profit. i'm just against them making such a huge profit on the back of other people that other people suffer and die. there is a appy medium. i irktt way.i >> you mentioned earlier that you can make i don't now ether you in tniisciiive has of them. >> it wasn't not sure drug

maker, a true partnershipeya5cte worse. that brings my mind the idea of not sure drug anyfrcturing. di eouugrc u k international manufactures are part of the solution, part of the problem? where do they fit in? >> they are not doing well right now i'm part of it haso do orza your post on the developing world. india was able to duplicate important drugs very cheaply and wo bt t hao t in gaane us ni'swsgovern patents on

manufacturing processes, not on competition. so they could duplicate a drug legally and distribute it. what they have to change was the way i aued tr hecedi adhere to the patent to the west, where the competition drug is what is protected. so india can no longer duplicate the drugs like they used to. imsingptnpoe emous problem, intellectual property. as i say in the book, i do think a lot of us are even intellectual property. a lot of it was raided from the third world to begin with. for that rean, i think telaw diulr ct i owrk them off there been a concert at the american army surgical come any who have now been part of the problem

so the trip laws need to be eased not provoke. thwyovgr fead t t pe since they've decided not to do that. they should not be forced to respect our patents buwe are not forced to respect our per that we set up wayit's set up nois n rel. w pts b ied abo repat. that's only ustice. >> you now, you said a lot o plntngourg maceical companies and i'm not questioning that she said. but he said to me privately that there have beenmoments of generosity, moments where we e drug companiesehavin g . > bdcussing them and

talking about her shapes they made before example. the gas foundation and the impact fund and with other groups that are dedicated to the help of e peop in the wold. ye iothlwc i iol these things and those are very. the problem is it hasn't been sustained. but that is what they want to see happen. were actually going to solvehap. were actually going to solve these problems and make a profit th w lee iac that they would like to see as well. anybody else? thank you so much [applause]

twr lo tthla on reading this summer. here are some of their tweets.

>> you can submit your a summer reading list. t t bv t mm e is it a tv/summer reading.org. booktv, 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books every weekend on c-span 2 prt be tmy life, i can seriously remember the first time i think about this race between the two presidents 1789.

what i dremember is reading in bond i teth tyl edtse busy with me about this professionally. i thought to myself, way to bury the lead. all of a suddewere in this race beten two future presidents, james madison, james monroe debatg twot pot ct t die lde. l a sudden you're in the next page and there in the first congress. i said we should bury the lead. i decided iwould read everything i could abt the election. i thought no one had ever written anythingbout t e sugvl t inoculation of george washington. but many people don't know is when he tookthe th of office, two of the 13 states were outside the union. north carolina and rhode island bee hecnti tonut in the bill of rights. i guarantee of fundamenlism.

this is common for the anti-federalist. the common denominator of which james monroe was born was that th oose thcostutio nye ofdfent gl some of them generally believe he could not havsome of them gee he could not have u angles. some of them generally believe he could not have union that covered the different states. they believe they may be independent states or perhaps we shall conferates,jm on aniert iond his objective to the constitution was centered around this in the bill of rights. while washington to the oath of office, two states, w yo and virginia were activating for aw. they believe that it was infiltrated by enemies of the new government under constitution to be scrapped and done away with in the union would b fractured never ever to w tanhe mser an

li booktv.org. here are the best-selling nonfiction books according to "usa today." this list reflects sales for the week of jly 12. first is wild

hae reg mm tvants to now. >> the political heart by e.j. di dublin on right n. and i have a nice stack next to my bed paul kugman's latest book fortis