Social responsibility means different things to different people, particularly when its comes to large corporations. For pharma, this is a charged issue. No longer a matter of donations to United Way or the local symphony, drugmakers are scrutinized for business practices that affect society in various ways. To get a better grip on the issue, we chatted with Bob Freeman, a former executive director of public policy at AstraZeneca, who is now a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at Texas A&M Health Science Center and the editor of the Journal of Pharmaceutical Finance, Economics and Policy. He sounds off on public relations, pricing and overseas patent disputes.

Pharmalot: So, Bob, what is corporate social responsibility?
Freeman: The traditional definition has been philanthropy, strong worker protection, workplace safety, concern for the environment. If you ask any employer, they still think of it that way. But it’s become much broader than that. For pharma, it’s about doing research in neglected diseases of the Third World. Making meaningful, sustainable progress in increasing access to needed drugs. And working with NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and intra-governmental bodies to solve the problems of the developing world. Unless a company is willing to do this, they won’t have access to those markets as they have in the developed world. And pharma has to work with the NGOs to get structural changes if they want pricing flexibility and reductions in tariffs. Companies are reluctant to do something unless they can sustain it, and they can’t sustain it without infrastructure.

Pharmalot: How is pharma doing? And where can it improve?
Freeman: It’s improving, but we’re in such a turbulent time, it’s hard to say where it’s going. But I’ve got real problems with DTC ads, which I think encouarge the inappropriate use of medicines. And I believe the patent system here is abused by efforts to delay generics from entering the market. These are not responsible practices. Meanwhile, te old model is giving way to a new model. One problem is that you can spend more money on public relations to talk about the good you do than on the actual programs, and then you open yourself up to criticism. Take patient assistant programs in this country. Some are effective, but there’s no uniformity across companies or disease categories. Each program is product specific. Industry set up along brand teams, and they determine how much to give away in the contest of their profit and loss responsibility. As a result, the social responsibility largesse is patchwork - some benefit, some don’t. There’s no huge increase in access.

Pharmalot: How does pricing factor into this?
Freeman: I don’t think that pricing, in isolation, is a corporate social responsbility issue. But all of the industry PR falls back on innovation. The industry says that it benefits society through innovation, and they can’t get away from that theme. The problem is that we’re in a dearth of innovation. And when industry say it needs high prices to develop new drugs for those who can’t afford them, well, it’s not really true. It’s also not true that high prices are needed to recover R&D, because that’s a sunk cost. The industry just isn’t doing a good job making its case.

Pharmalot: What about the debate over patents and access to medicines we’ve seen flare up this year? Is it socially responsible to fight over patents in Thailand or India, for instance?
Freeman: I don’t care whether it’s right from a legal standpoint. It’s one of the stupidest things you can do. I don’t have a problem with wealthy countries paying higher prices. But take a look at what Roche is doing in poor countries. The company isn’t filing patents there, but is providing manufacturing skills. You need to make a conscious decision to continue filing patents in developed countries, but forego them in poor countries. This allows a company to work with indigenous manufacturers and produce medicines at an affordable price. What I see happening elsewhere, I think, can ruin the industry.