Cancer chemotherapy, biodiversity, public and private property: the case of the anti-cancer drug Taxol

Abstract

The drug taxol has been hailed by many in the cancer community as a major breakthrough in the treatment of cancer. It has already been approved in use against ovarian and advanced breast cancer in many countries world-wide. Taxol has also promoted profound debates in the policy arena not, as one might expect, because of the characteristics or purposes of the drug itself, but because of other far-reaching effects. Taxol is a complex compound found in the bark of the Pacific yew tree, primarily in Oregon and Washington in the USA. The bark was first collected in 1962 and cytotoxicity demonstrated in 1964. Yet it was not until 1989 that the first results of clinical trials were reported. In the US taxol was then rushed through the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory procedures, approval being granted for use in refractory ovarian cancer in 1992. The controversies surrounding taxol surfaced in 1989 and grew substantially over the next few years. In this paper we examine two principal controversies concerning taxol, the first of which focused on apparent conflicts between the needs of environmental protection and those of cancer chemotherapy. Although the media portrayed this as a clash of interests between the environment and people with cancer, we argue that it was an attempt to increase lay participation in biomedical decision making and policy formulation. The second controversy was between health policy and the transfer of public scientific property to the corporate sector. The pharmaceutical company Bristol–Myers Squibb was given exclusive rights to provide taxol from Pacific yew trees under a Co-operative Research and Development Agreement signed in 1991. While this was seen to be in the US Government’s (as well as the company’s) interest, it provoked a public reaction questioning the terms and consequences of the transfer of publicly generated scientific knowledge to the private sector.