X-Rays and MRIs: The role of government policy and investment

Many forces acted to build the wide variety of medical diagnostic machines in common use today. However, this entry will focus specifically on government policy and its role in the development of radiology (X-rays) and MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging). These two stories, though separated by 80 years and 4,000 miles, show distinct and interesting parallels. 

Radiology

Once X-rays had been discovered in Germany by Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895, medical diagnostic radiology developed at an astounding pace, but occurred primarily in companies and without Roentgen’s direct involvement. Although he surely understood the value of the invention, he chose not to patent the technology (Doby & Alker, 1997). The reason for his choice is unclear, although it was likely due – at least in part – to his personal ideology, “To Roentgen, science was a calling, an almost religious obligation to expand knowledge of the natural world” (Kevles, 1997, p. 19). However, it is also possible that he was deterred by the high cost of German patents (at least DM 30 per year) that, in exchange, gave inventors only limited recourse against infringement. The German patent system at the time was priced to “eliminate protection for trivial inventions and was meant to “foster economic development” (not necessarily by protecting the rights of the original inventor) (Khan, 2010). Many applications of Roentgen’s discovery followed, including the fluoroscope by Thomas Edison. Yet Wilhelm Roentgen continued to live the simple life of a professor, albeit a very well-known professor, even donating the proceeds of his Nobel Prize to his university.

Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen
Source: www.odec.ca

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

The naissance of MRI took place in a different context from radiology – though the outcome was much the same. In contrast to 19th century Germany, the United States in the 1970s supported (at least in theory) basic science through government grants and economic growth via a relatively inexpensive patent system geared toward protecting the rights of the original inventor. And so it was in this environment that Raymond Damadian and Paul Lauterbur were separately trying to develop MRI machines for practical medical applications. They were operating on small grants from the National Cancer Institutes and the National Heart and Lung Institutes, but MRI technology is quite complicated and significantly larger investments would be needed to bring such a product to market. In response to a grant proposal from Damadian, the National Institutes of Health refused to provide funding for such development research; its preference was for basic science. Thereafter he, as well as Lauterbur, applied separately for patents in hopes of perfecting, and profiting from, their medical devices. In this regard, Damadian succeeded in obtaining multiple patents but Lauterbur was defeated by high attorney fees and a one-year statute of limitations after initial discovery. Although both scientists attempted to secure private funding, investments were difficult to come by and ultimately, as with X-rays, MRI machines were commercialized by large companies such as General Electric (GE) that, at least initially, did not pay fees to either scientist. In the end, however, Damadian’s patent did result in a $100 million settlement from GE in 1995 (Kevles, 1997). Lauterbur, though he did not receive the profits he was hoping for, was compensated with a Nobel Prize in 2003.

 

Raymond V. Damadian   Paul C. Lauterbur

Raymond V. Damadian 
Source: http://opentopia.com

Paul C. Lauterbur 
Source: http://indianautographs.com

Patents and Scientific Funding

It is interesting to consider the role of patents and funding for basic research in the development of these medical imaging devices. Clearly, in both cases, dedicated scientists in positions that supported basic scientific exploration were key factors. Even if Damadian and Lauterbur were motivated purely by the promise of future profits, they were standing on the shoulders of generations of basic scientific giants.

The role of the patent is somewhat murkier, and seems to pale in importance to the availability of capital. In both cases, it seems, the technology became available to the medical community and innovators were compensated either by science or by industry. But are the funding and incentive structures sufficient to ensure ongoing technological development? 

Although one might conclude, based on Damadian’s story, that government agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health should expand their purview to include development research, this would not be a new debate. The goals of these offices date back to the end of World War II when, after years of political and ideological wrangling, defeats and compromise, the members of the first NSF board of directors declared in 1951 that “the principal function of the Foundation was to advance basic scientific research and training, and that alone” (Kevles, 1978, p 364). Hence, in an era of rapidly-changing technology, efficient financial systems, and pervasive information flows, perhaps the future of economic development would be best served by re-examining the patent system.

Image from Damadian's Patent 7196519: Stand-up vertical field MRI apparatus
Source: freepatentsonline.com

References

Doby, T., & Alker, G. (1997). Origins and Developments of Medical Imaging. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Kevles, B. H. (1997). Naked to the bone: Medical imaging in the twentieth century. Naked to the bone Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

Kevles, D. J. (1978). The Physicists. New York: Knopf.

Khan, Z. (2010). An Economic History of Patent Institution. EH.net. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/khan.patents.>