Drug Companies Merge – Ethical Issues

Posted by Robert Santos.

It seems that multiple companies are beginning to merge in an attempt for one company to make a larger profit and the other company to remain alive. Some companies tend to merge in order to both strengthen their profits and publicity. In this specific case, these companies merged in order to create a better and more powerful drug that could be beneficial and a game changer for individuals who suffer from multiple sclerosis. Or so it seemed. Unfortunately for these French companies, there well planned venture did not go as planned.

In 2011, a giant French pharmaceutical company known as Sanofi acquired Genzyme, a small biotech company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Sanofi paid 20 billion dollars for the company, and although that seems a bit much for a small-time company, Genzyme was making strides to create a powerful and promising treatment to multiple sclerosis called Lemtrada. It seemed like a good deal that would not only benefit the two companies but the world as well.

Unfortunately things did not turn out for the best with this venture between the two companies. It turned out that Sanofi was developing their own treatment to multiple sclerosis. The drug is called Aubagio and would have been a competitor against Lemtrada. Sanofli was faced with a dilemma: they could have followed F.D.A regulations and worked to seek approval for Lemtrada, or finish working on Aubagio. The only catch would be that by focusing on Lemtrada, Sonafli would have to give additional payments to the Genzyme rights holders in the estimate of 3.8 billion dollars. Of course Sonafli choose the latter option and focused on their drug without the right holders of Genzyme knowing, and now a lawsuit has been issued.

A lawsuit was filed against Sonafli by Genzyme rights holders under the claim that Sonafli failed to fulfil its obligations under their deal. Because of this, the individuals who invested in Genzyme have not received the money owed to them in a sum of 708 million dollars. The lawsuit claims Sonafli may have taken it upon themselves to slow the approval of Lemtrada through the F.D.A in order to avoid having to pay the right holders of Genzyme, while the approval of Sonafli’s drug Aubagio was an easier process and did not have as much difficulty of being approved as Lemtrada did. It has already been noted by F.D.A officials that the time process for Lemtrada to be approved took longer than it should have, therefore, it already seems that Sofali is in the wrong.

Unfortunately, this is a case where the wellbeing of individuals is outweighed by the possibility of profit. If what Genzyme is claiming is true, we would have been witness to another company thinking about their pockets before the health of many. Considering the impact these drugs could have had on the lives of the somewhat 2.3 million people in the world who suffer from multiple sclerosis, it is a sad thing to see money interrupting the process of progress. Hopefully, we see some agreement and it happens as fast as possible so these companies can go back to focusing on what’s important, and that’s saving a life.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.