What is "open source medicine?"
Wikipedia, the online source for basic information on everything, describes "open source" as "a development methodology that offers practical accessibility to a product's source." Most frequently used in the context of software development, the product's source in that case is its "source code." In the context of medicine, its source is the formulas, processes and other basic information necessary to produce and even improve upon the medication. While usually unstated, or not clearly stated, the principal practical distinction between the "open source" and "closed source" business models is that "open source" means product developers get the free unimpeded ability to use the knowledge that is basis for a product in their own research and for the purpose of making products available. In the "closed source" business model, the original developer or someone making a claim based on the original developer's rights, claims an ownership interest that allows them to restrict or block access to basic product information so that the holder of these purported rights has an enhanced ability to earn profits. Thus, it became the motto of the open source software movement that "Information wants to be free," and it is the motto of the Open Source Medicine Foundation that "Medicine wants to be free."
Can an "open source" approach really make a difference?
Stated simply, by releasing medicine from the boundaries of the proprietary business model we hope to make more and better treatments available to more people at lower cost. Yes, this can make a difference. The Foundation believes that our complete reliance on a propriety model for the development of medical treatments has completely distorted the supply of treatments available. Many treatments, such as HDL therapy, are not available because they are not easily subjected to a for profit business model or because they would compete with other more profitable treatments that are already in place. Even if those existing treatments are less beneficial than other therapies, they will prevail under a business model that puts profit first, if they are more profitable than a medically superior alternative.
Why isn't the government doing this work?
The short answer is that the government isn't doing this work because it is inconsistent with the existing process by which government funds medical research. Under that system government does no research of its own, instead providing money to large institutions working in concert with private sector drug companies which are engaged primarily in the production of high cost, maintenance-type drugs. The long answer is that government does very little to directly advance medical research, relaying instead on the private sector to perform that task. That is as it should be. At the Open Source Medicine Foundation we believe in maintaining a strong private sector economy and strong private sector health care system. Currently, government impacts the advancement of medical research in three ways (1) through the regulation of the health care system including the introduction of new drugs and many forms of medical treatment; (2) by regulating through the income tax code which charities can raise money for medical research and how they can spend it; and, finally, government donates billions of dollars to medical research through funding it provides to charitable research institutions and universities and the large institutional charities that, for a variety of reasons, are favored by government. The Open Source Medicine Foundation recognizes that there is value in that system, which has made many important drugs available to the public, and which has steered the course of medical research for the past forty years. However, because of the expense of producing products in that system, and because it favors the production primarily of drugs, and only those that that will make the most profit, the system is skewed against many medical treatments. It is also important to understand that the end result of that process is an assortment of drugs that, while useful and beneficial, are owned by private drug companies and which are sold for enormous profit. The Open Source Medical Foundation exists to fill the gap government leaves open for real charitable activity designed to produce affordable treatments at a relatively low research cost.
Why shouldn't I just donate to one of the major established charities that has been around for years?
Maybe you should donate to those charities. If you are careful about how you make your donation, it may possible to donate to an organization like the American Heart Association or the American Cancer Society and designate the money to be spent solely for medical research. If you give enough money, you may be able to require that the money be spent for a particular research project. However, in most cases your money will go into the charity's stream of general revenue and it is unlikely that any of the money will be used for research on new medical treatments. Where it is used for research, it will most likely be used in a process like the one described in the preceding paragraph, that will ultimately lead to the production of a new drug that is patented by a private sector drug company. That's not to say you shouldn't donate if that's your choice, but inform yourself about the charity before you make a decision. Don't assume that a charitable organization is good or bad for you because it is big or small. In any case, the big institutional charities do a good job at what they do. The Open Source Medicine Foundation was created to serve somewhat different purposes than those charities. If you agree that there is a need for what this Foundation is doing then please support us, but we don't want to discourage you from supporting other charities.
Why is OSMeds different from other charites? How do I know that my money will be spent to develop new treatments for real patients with real problems?
For the foreseeable future, the Open Source Medicine Foundation, has no ambition to become a large foundation with high operating expenses. Ours is a stealth operation with a website, some printing costs, government imposed filing fees that must be paid annually, and few other expenses. We expect that our total operating expenses will be less than 15% of the funds we raise. The remainder of our donations will be spent directly on research and trying to get the results of that research into the hands of people that want to bring high-quality affordable and innovative health treatments to the public. We plan a completely transparent operation. Our books will always be available to our supporters for inspection. Thank you for your support.