Letters

To the editor:

Thank you for the helpful profile of British Petroleum (BP) in the November issue. I requested a BP profile with my first subscription to Multinational Monitor two years ago. At that time, the Ohio Student Environmental Action Coalition (Ohio SEAC) was just beginning its Campaign for Corporate Accountability at BP.

In Ohio, hundreds of students have participated in direct action and education aimed at changing BP's horrid behavior, and more importantly, changing this fossil fuel-addicted society. In December 1990, after sending a letter to then-BP America President and CEO James Ross and sponsoring a demonstration in front of BP headquarters in Cleveland, SEAC was granted a two-hour meeting with Ross. Representatives from Ohio SEAC, Ohio Citizen Action and Allen County Citizens for the Environment issued requests for better air monitoring at Lima, where BP's refinery and chemical plant are by far the worst polluters in Ohio. Ross refused to give any of the information requested or consider continuous air monitoring. Despite our willingness to engage in discussion with BP, it was clear to me, after hearing Ross say "My job is to make money ..." that the only thing that would change BP is a long-term boycott. In April 1992, Ohio SEAC officially kicked off its state-wide boycott after a second attempt to negotiate with BP in March.

Those of us organizing the BP boycott in Ohio are disgusted at BP's support of apartheid, its abuse of workers in Ireland and elsewhere, its ties to governments and militaries around the world, its mining and deforestation and its effective veto power (through the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the powerful chemical lobby) over any meaningful pollution prevention laws in the Ohio legislature or on the ballot. By expanding the issues we address and by joining with the anti-apartheid and workers' movements, SEAC plans to spread the BP boycott to communities where BP operates worldwide. The SEAC boycott will begin on the national level on November 10, "Toxic Tuesday," when 30 SEAC groups in 11 states will picket BP gas stations.

The uncontrolled and destructive role played by multinationals, especially oil giants like BP, is a problem that cannot be ignored by those who care about ecology, social justice and the fate of future generations. Despite the ability of large corporations to manipulate government, citizens have the power to take a stand against pollution and oppression by voting economically and refusing to buy certain products. Boycott BP!

Matthew Bennett
Former SEAC
BP Campaign Coordinator
Athens, OH

 

To the editor:

I read with interest Dr. Bruce Chabner's letter to the editor in the July/August issue of the Multinational Monitor, defending the National Cancer Institute (NCI) agreement with Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMS) to commercialize the cancer drug taxol, which had been criticized in an article in the May 1992 Multinational Monitor by Dan Newman. His letter addressed a number of different points, and they deserve a response.

Dr. Chabner correctly says that BMS received its exclusive contract to develop taxol through a competitive process, but he does not offer a convincing case for the use of an exclusive agreement in the first place. Dr. Chabner simply says that he has "serious doubts" that any company would have proceeded on a non-exclusive basis, given "the high costs of development and risk." In fact, NCI never made a finding that an exclusive contract was necessary for the development of taxol, and he greatly exaggerates the costs and risks faced by BMS.

The government's role in the discovery and development of taxol has been enormous. Government funded researchers discovered taxol, developed its manufacturing processes, carried out all pre-clinical research, and completed testing Phase I and Phase II clinical trials on humans, before BMS even entered the picture. BMS got involved in taxol very late in the game, after the government had greatly reduced the costs and risks of developing the drug.

A number of studies have analyzed the risks and costs of developing new drugs. Among the best known is an industry-sponsored Tufts University study that claims the cost of developing a new drug is $231 million. However, in order to get to this figure, the study assumes the company develops the drug from scratch, over a period of more than 10 years, facing large risks of failure. About two-thirds of the total cost of drug development is assigned to the pre-clinical research, which of course, the government had done for taxol. By the time a drug enters FDA phase III trials the risks have fallen dramatically - nearly two out of three drugs are successful - and the expected costs of development (including the risk of failure) drop to less than $12 million, or less than 16 percent of the total estimated cost. Moreover, in the case of taxol, the government continues to finance the testing of the drug, including ongoing Phase III trials. And, consider the fact that BMS is expected to receive FDA marketing approval for taxol less than two years after it signed the NCI/BMS taxol agreement.

BMS has incurred some costs and some risks, but nothing like that which Dr. Chabner has suggested. He asserts that BMS spent more than $100 million on the scale-up of the production of the drug. But I asked BMS about this figure and was told that it did not apply to its costs of developing the natural form of taxol from the Pacific Yew tree, which is the subject of the NCI/BMS agreement, but rather the amount of money the company claims it will spend to develop new sources for taxol or taxol analogues, which will likely be subject to patents. Any new source of taxol, including synthetic methods of producing taxol, will be considered a new product by the FDA. Furthermore, BMS's investments in new sources of taxol are occurring in a competitive market - further evidence that there was no need to give any company a monopoly to market the natural source taxol from the Pacific Yew, that the government had discovered and developed at tax payer expense.

Dr. Chabner praises BMS for its restraint in pricing the new AIDS drug ddI. He fails to mention that ddI was also developed by the government, and that BMS was given a ten- year exclusive license to market this taxpayer-financed drug. The fact that ddI is priced below AZT is nice, but since when was AZT considered a benchmark for reasonable pricing? Moreover, NCI refuses to even consider any requests that it provide information on the costs of manufacturing or marketing ddI, to determine if the ddI price is indeed reasonable.

As to the price that BMS pays the government for the bark from the Pacific Yew tree, how can he justify the extremely low prices the government has been receiving? What pricing model does NCI use to determine what the monopoly rights on this bark should be worth?

I'm pleased that Dr. Chabner has come to the defense of Dr. Robert Wittes, the NCI official who worked on taxol with the government and then allegedly helped BMS put together its taxol proposal. I'm sure he's a fine doctor, but why won't Dr. Wittes answer any question from the public or the news media about his role in all this?

NCI has played an enormously important role in the development of drugs like taxol and ddI, just to mention a few, but it needs to do a better job of protecting the interests of taxpayers and consumers.

Jamie Love
Director, Tax Payer Assets Project
Philadelphia, PA