Cool post on an interestingly-titled blog, Dr Shock MD, on reasons that foreign pharmaceutical companies are in China:
- Relative ease of recruiting patients with diseases under investigation
- Substantially lower costs
- A strong medical infrastructure
- The cost for a researcher in China is as little as 20 percent of the cost in the United States
To my opinion there are some disadvantages to this development.
- Protection of patients in trials is probably not as solid as in Europe and the US.
- Data obtained from this research might not be applicable to patients in Europe and the US, two other important markets for these companies.
- This could be due to differences in pharmacokinetics as well as diagnostic differences between very different cultures. Is depression in China tolerated and is it the same as in the US/Europe? and
- Do they adhere in the same manner to for instance the DSM IV criteria?
- Is money not a strong motivator for participation in trials?
The main points at the top of the Dr's post are similar reasons for explaining why any FDI comes into China, not just pharma firms. However, he is right in pointing out problems associated with patient treatment and, as with any international testing, pharmacokinetics differences have to be looked at carefully (e.g. you don't want to develop a drug that is metabolized faster in Asians than other folks).
With respect to patient treatment and informed consent issues, this is interesting stuff. In years past, you just went with whatever local standards dictated and you had no problems. In the age of sweatshop factory exposes in newspapers, environmental NGOs, and of course the insidious bloggers, you never know how/when information about your operations anywhere in the world is going to get out. MNCs have to not only follow local rules, but they also have to be quite aware of how following those local rules may be viewed by customers (and regulatory authorities) in your home country. (Yahoo! knows what I'm talking about here.)
I noticed that the Dr did not mention IP protection. Either this is off his radar screen as a topic or he didn't see this as a problem. I would assume the former.