The next ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Doha, Qatar, on 9–13 November promises to be a lively affair. One agenda item, in particular, that will demand attention is an expected appeal by developing nations, led by Brazil, for greater leeway in the compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals in the event of public-health emergencies, under the TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement.

Brazil, the advocacy group Doctors Without Borders and many African governments have for some time been pushing for greater use of a provision in TRIPS that allows nations to override patent protection on drugs in “national emergencies”. The US government has opposed this flexibility, sometimes threatening to challenge the use of the provision by developing countries facing AIDS crises.

It is salutary, then, to see how America has responded to a national emergency of its own — the recent anthrax attacks — that required action on drug affordability. Initially, Canada announced that it would license the production of Cipro (ciprofloxacin), a treatment for anthrax, by suppliers other than the drug's patent holder, Bayer. Then Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) began to appear on television demanding that the United States do the same.

The Bush administration at first dismissed such action as illegal. But, forced by the persistent senator to acknowledge that this was not the case, it proceeded to extract agreement from Bayer to supply the drug at about one-fifth of its previous price. The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, even boasted that the threat of compulsory licensing had helped to clinch the deal.

No such muscle is available to the smaller African nations, whose populations are being ravaged by AIDS. They should demand as much leeway in interpreting TRIPS as the United States has seen fit to allow itself.