video NOTES

Twenty videos are available, geared to individual chapter topics. The teaching notes for these videos are also included in the Video Notes section of this Instructor’s Resource Manual, beginning on page V.1.

Video 4:“Raven Biotechnologies: If It Isn’t Ethical, It Isn’t Right”

Raven Laboratories is a biotechnology company founded by Jennie Mather. This video shows how Raven attempts to develop biotechnological drugs without compromising ethics.

(Bonus Case 4-3, “Raven Biotechnologies: If It Isn’t Ethical, It Isn’t Right,” on page 4.52 of this manual relates to this video.)

Video Title

Raven Biotechnologies: If It Isn’t Ethical, It Isn’t Right

learning objectives

  • Explore the ethical dilemmas faced by a pharmaceutical company.
  • Discuss how a business integrates ethical factors into its business practices.
  • Explain the role of risk in a business enterprise.
  • Show how the entrepreneur’s personal code of ethics influences the business’s activities and practices.

key people and companies

Jennie Mather, founder of Raven Biotechnologies

Steven T. Worsley, Vice President, Business Development, at Raven

overview

The pharmaceutical industry is experiencing a resurgence, fueled by advances in biotechnology. Drugs can now be tailored to target specific diseases with significantly reduced side effects. This boom began with the genetic engineering pioneered at Genentech in the late 1970s.

Yet, despite these advances, the success rate for new drugs is less than 10%. Drugs that show promise in initial tests may prove to be unsafe, ineffective, or uneconomical. Drug company research divisions walk a fine line—building upon discoveries and developments in the field while not violating the rights of patent holders. The stakes are extremely high. A successful drug can earn hundreds of millions of dollars. With this much at stake, companies must be constantly aware of the potential for unethical behavior in pursuit of profit.

Raven Laboratories was founded by Jennie Mather to develop biotechnological drugs without compromising ethics, “to serve a greater good by breaking the old rules.”

preparing students before the video

The specific technology involved in Raven’s cell-based approach to drug design is exceedingly complex and may be hard for students to understand in detail. The best approach may be to leave the technology out of the discussion and focus instead on the larger ethical questions. What is a fair price for a break-through drug? How can a company exploit a technological advance without exploiting its customers?

major issues in the case

  • Life saving drugs – risk of side effects
  • Responsibility of companies to society
  • Role of profit in drug development
  • Acceptable versus unacceptable risks when testing drugs

Additional Discussion questions

1.Once a drug passes preliminary and toxicology testing, it must eventually tested on non-terminal human subjects. A standard industry practice is to pay physicians to conduct trials and to pay test subjects for their participation. Do you believe research trials paid for by the drug company can be objective? Why or why not?

2.A drug company discovers that a drug it is testing is ineffective on the targeted disease. However, in testing the researchers find that will treat a common disease in a developing country. The profit potential is very low. What should the company do? Why?

3.Could large pharmaceutical companies, such as Abbot Labs, Pfizer, or Merck, adopt Raven’s ethical framework? Why or why not?

Suggested Answers for Discussion Questions

1.Once a drug passes preliminary and toxicology testing, it must eventually tested on non-terminal human subjects. A standard industry practice is to pay physicians to conduct trials and to pay test subjects for their participation. Do you believe research trials paid for by the drug company can be objective? Why or why not?

This is an ongoing area of debate. If physicians are paid by the company to test a product, there can be a bias for positive results. In an ideal world, drug testing would be conducted by an impartial entity. In the real world, however, new drugs would never come to market without paid testing. The Food and Drug Administration relies on research presented by the drug developer. While there may be a potential conflict of interest, only the pharmaceutical company itself has the deep pockets and the incentive to conduct such testing.

2.A drug company discovers that a drug it is testing is ineffective on the targeted disease. However, in testing the researchers find that will treat a common disease in a developing country. The profit potential is very low. What should the company do? Why?

This scenario is based on the classic case of Merck Pharmaceutical and ivermectin, its break-through treatment for river blindness. Merck’s research in veterinary drugs led to a treatment for the primary cause of blindness in sub-Saharan Africa. But even at heavily discounted prices, no government could afford the treatment. Merck eventually decided to provide the drug at no cost to those affected. The company reaped an enormous public relations bonanza that helped establish its reputation for social responsibility. (This topic is further discussed in Chapter 4 of the Instructor’s Resource Manual. Review Lecture Link 4-1, “Merck and Ethics (Part I)”, on page 4.32.)

(In 2003 the same company was forced with withdraw its blockbuster pain reliever Vioxx when patients began developing life-threatening cardiac problems. Interesting discussion topic.)

3.Could large pharmaceutical companies, such as Abbot Labs, Pfizer, or Merck, adopt Raven’s ethical framework? Why or why not?

Raven’s ethical foundation is just that, its foundation. Jennie Mather created Raven Laboratories with a specific mission, to develop biotechnological drugs without compromising ethics, “to serve a greater good by breaking the old rules.”Every decision the company made was built upon that framework. Large pharmaceutical corporations can operate ethically, and do. Is it easier for a small company to operate ethically? Maybe. Small companies have fewer stockholders and face less intense scrutiny, but small doesn’t equal ethical, and large doesn’t equal greedy.