Ciprofloxacin: The nation's drug of choice

Proportionality. A catchword that, in light of the recent anthrax crisis, has not been quite so catchy.

Take, for example, the Cipro craze. Now the buzzword of consumers, prominent and unknown alike, is cipro-floxacin, also known as Cipro. An FDA-approved oral antibiotic to treat anthrax, it is flying off pharmacies' shelves. And why? Because there is the possibility that these consumers, at some point, might become infected by the deadly anthrax. Plus, there's the fear that if and when consumers do become infected, there will be a shortage of the drug, leaving these people with no alternatives unless they have already purchased the cure.

However, Cipro, which treats among other things such ailments as urinary tract infections, gonorrhea and infectious diarrhea, is not the only FDA-approved drug used to treat anthrax; there are other, less-expensive, public domain medicines that will also work, including such drugs as penicillin, tetracycline and doxycycline.

Given the terrorist actions of Sept. 11, followed by the cases of anthrax found in seven locations in three states and the District of Columbia, this rush to obtain a safeguard for one's life is fairly justifiable. But is it reasonable? Not if it requires the solution proposed by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Tuesday, Sen. Schumer advised the government to lift the patent for Cipro, held by Bayer Corporation, to allow for generic manufacturing. Without a preemptive suspension of the patent, Bayer would lose market exclusivity in December 2003. With the suspension, the production of Cipro could be sped to a pace that, according to Schumer, "will give us an adequate supply even under a worse-case scenario," within two to three months, thereby alleviating "people's fears so there should be less hoarding." This measure is unnecessary — given the combined choice of other drugs and the increase in Bayer's output of Cipro — as well as wrong from a public policy standpoint.

Patents are grants made by the government, awarding the inventor the sole right to produce and sell the creation for a limited period. These grants are made explicitly to encourage the development of new inventions. Without this protection, there would be no incentive, other than the well being of the world, to work toward new discoveries. While it would be extremely noble to assume that the world's interests were enough motivation to entice inventors to continue their work, the reality is that the work can't be continued without the protection, which attracts funds. And the necessary monetary incentives for companies would be lost.

Does intellectual property mean nothing during a crisis? If so, then where does one draw the line? What about privacy, first amendment and intrusion rights? Especially now, under the aegis of a national crisis, when airports are being forced to reevaluate their methods of operation, enforcing stricter guidelines and searching more baggage, one might argue that our privacy rights are being abridged.

But in the case of Cipro, one must ask questions before suspending a right. Foremost among those questions is whether Cipro is the only viable solution. Well, this doesn't seem to be the case, for penicillin and doxycycline are also being recommended as practical alternatives.

So, then the question becomes whether the crisis is so serious as to warrant the lifting of Bayer's patent. The subjectivity of that question leaves it open to wide discussion, but if the answer is or becomes yes, then the abridgement of Bayer's patent rights must be balanced through other means. For example, if the patent is lifted for a discreet period, then afterwards, Bayer's pat-ent could be extended for several months to a year. Or, proceeds from the generic manufacturing companies of the Cipro product could go to Bayer. In other words, intellectual property could be abridged during a crisis, but the costs should be met by the benefits.

Does intellectual property have value during a crisis? Of course it does. But in the case of Cipro, there is a lack of compelling evidence that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the country would benefit from suspending the patent. Suspension of this patent would mitigate intellectual property rights, one of those privileges that make this country great. Sen. Schumer, a little proportionality, please. Scott Jeffrey is from Washington, D.C. She can be reached at sjeffrey@princeton.edu.