Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Article Analysis: Bioethics of Pharmaceutical Pricing.
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper analyzes an article by Schofield and Rothestein regarding Abbott Labs' 400% price increase and the NIH response. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVPhrmPr.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
back on necessary drugs, or go without them entirely. An article published in 2004 suggests that peoples concerns about rising drug prices and the tactics of the pharmaceutical industry in
promoting its products are justified. Discussion In their article Currents in contemporary ethics, Amy Schofield and Mark Rothstein discuss the "Government Patent Policy Act of 1980," legislation which was created
to prevent the pharmaceutical industry from abusing "government-funded inventions" (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004, p. 777). The authors argue that the pharmaceutical industry has not abided by the provisions of the
Act, resulting in a price increase and violation of the law, though it also seems that little or nothing will be done about it (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004). Prior to
passage of the Patent Policy Act, which is also known as the "Bayh-Dole Act," it was customary for the government to retain title to the projects it funded (Schofield and
Rothstein, 2004). Only a small percentage of the patents owned by the government (fewer than 5% in 1979) were ever "commercialized" (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004, p. 777). As a result
of this-at least in part-American "productivity and innovation fell behind that of other industrialized nations" (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004, p. 777). It was argued that if more government-owned patents were
made available to commercial users, the practiced would "help to reinvigorate the American economy" (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004, p. 777). One of the provisions of the act is something called
"march-in rights," whereby the government has the right to "require a contractor, assignee, or licensee of a government-funded invention to grant a license (nonexclusive or exclusive) to responsible applicants in
any field of use under certain circumstances" (Schofield and Rothstein, 2004, p. 777). That is, the government can force a company to grant a license to certain parties under certain
...