Advertisement

General Introduction

  • Maurice CassierEmail author
  • Marilena Correa
Chapter

Abstract

We posit that an innovation system developed in Brazil’s health industry during the AIDS epidemic, from the 1990s onwards, and based on universal access to treatment, the local production of generic medicines, and public and citizen-based regulation of intellectual property and the markets. This model inspired the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 2000s and continues to inspire humanitarian organizations such as the Drugs and Neglected Diseases Initiative. It does nevertheless have weaknesses and disparities: there has not been a sufficient increase in public health spending, and the shortcomings of the pharmaceutical raw materials industry are still evident. We posit, however, that the institutions, technological capacities and health democracy underpinning this innovation model are likely to withstand the economic and political crisis, and may even provide resources to overcome it. In December 2017, during a time of stagnant growth in Brazil, the Ministry of Health decided to set up 25 additional Product Development Partnerships to supply the public health system and learn new technologies.

Bibliography

  1. Allen, R. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alves, A. J. (2002). Clinical studies-generic medicines. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias, 74(3), 552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caliari, T., & Ruiz, R. (2010). Structure and innovation in pharmaceutical industry in Brazil: The impact of generics drugs. Paper presented at the DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2010 PhD conference, Comwell Rebild Bakker, Aalborg, Denmark, 16p.Google Scholar
  4. Caliari, T., Mazzoleni, R., & Costa Povoa, L. M. (2013). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry in Brazil post-TRIPS. In S. Mani & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), TRIPS compliance, national patent regimes and innovation (pp. 29–30). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. Cassier, M., & Correa, M. (2003). Patents, innovation and public health: Brazilian public-sector laboratories’ experience in copying AIDS drugs. In Moatti et al. (Ed.) Economics of AIDS aid and access in developing countries (pp. 89–107). Paris, ANRS. Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H. (1985). Changing order. Replication and induction in scientific practice (p. 187). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Correa, C. (2007). Guidelines for the examination of pharmaceutical patents: Developing a public health perspective. Geneva: World Health Organization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalmarco, G., de Freitas Dewes, M., Zawislak, P. A., & Padula, A. D. (2011). Universities’ intellectual property: Path for innovation or patent competition? Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 6(3), 159–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Georgio, R. C. (2007). From university to industry: Technology transfer at Unicamp in Brazil. In A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds.), Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices (pp. 1747–1752). Oxford, UK/Davis, CA: MIHR/PIPRA (Available online at www.ipHandbook.org).Google Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H., Carvalho de Melho, J. M., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards meta-innovation in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flynn, M. (2008). Public production of anti-retroviral medicines in Brazil, 1990–2007. Development and Change, 39(4), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flynn, M. (2015). Pharmaceutical autonomy and public health in Latin America: State, society and industry in Brazil’s AIDS program (p. 230). New York/London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Flynn, M., & Andrade de Oliveira, E. (2008). Regulatory capitalism in emerging markets: An institutional analysis of Brazil’s health surveillance agency (ANVISA). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  14. Gadhela, C. A. G., Costa, L. R., Santos de Varge Malnodado, J. M., Barbosa, P. R., & Vargas, M. A. (2013). The health care economic-industrial complex: Concepts and general characteristics. Health, 5(10), 1607–1621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galvao, J. (2002). Access to antiretroviral drugs in Brazil. The Lancet, 360(9348), 1862–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kameda, K. (2014). Needs driven versus market driven pharmaceutical innovation: The consortium for the development of a new medicine against malaria in Brazil. Developing World Bioethics, 14, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laurito, T. L., Santagada, V., Caliendo, G., Oliveira, C. H., Barrientos-Astigarraga, R. E., & De Nucci, G. (2002). Nevirapine quantification in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Application to bioequivalence study. Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 37(4), 434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazzucato, M., & Penna, C. (2016). The Brazilian innovation system: A mission-oriented policy proposal. Brazil: Cgee, 114p.Google Scholar
  19. National Drug Policy. (2001). Ministry of Health, National Drug Policy, February 2001, 19p.Google Scholar
  20. Nunn, A. (2009). The politics and history of AIDS treatment in Brazil (p. 186). New York, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nunn, A., Fonseca, E. M., Bastos, F., Gruskin, S., & Salomon, J. (November 2007). Evolution of antiretroviral drug costs in Brazil in the context of free and universal access to AIDS treatment. PLoS Medicine, 4, 1804–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD. (2008). Science and innovation outlook, country notes, 164p.Google Scholar
  23. OECD. (2015). Economic survey of Brazil, 2015.Google Scholar
  24. Pécoul, C., & Trouiller, P. (1999). Access to essential drugs in poor countries: A lost battle? JAMA, 281(4), 361–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Samuelson, P., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). The law and economics of reverse engineering. Yale Law Journal, 111, 1577–1663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sennes, R. (n.d.). Innovation in Brazil: Public policies and business strategies, Brazil Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholar, 46p.Google Scholar
  27. Shadlen, K. (2011a). The political contradictions of incremental innovation: Lessons from pharmaceutical patent examination in Brazil. Politics & Society, 39(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shadlen, K. (2011b). The politics of patents and drugs in Brazil and Mexico: The industrial bases of health policies. In K. Shadlen, S. Guennif, A. Guzman, & N. Lalitha (Eds.), Intellectual property, pharmaceuticals and public health, access to drugs in developing countries (pp. 178–201). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Sorte Junior, W. F. (2012). The production and R&D structure of the Brazilian pharmaceutical industry: The role of public procurement and public drug production. Global Public Health, 7(10), 1062–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Torkomian, A. L. V., & Ritter dos Santos, M. E. (2013). University and patenting in Brazil. Helice, 2(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  31. Veras, J. (2014). Making Tenofovir accessible in the Brazilian public health system: Patent conflicts and generic production. Developing World Bioethics, 14, 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. WHO. (2012). World Health Statistics, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRSVillejuifFrance
  2. 2.Social Medicine InstituteRio de Janeiro State UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations