In the fall of 2001, anthrax was used as a weapon
of terror in the United States when it was sent to numerous media and
political organizations and individuals, including Tom Brokaw of NBC
News, Dan Rather of CBS News, and U.S. Senators. According to a report
from the CDC, 22 people were infected with the anthrax spores that were
mailed out in two separate attacks, and of those, five persons died.
(CDC) Fortunately, for many of the victims, once it was established and
known that anthrax was the cause of the illnesses (and deaths), Bayer
was able to provide for sale to the victims and to others who feared
becoming victims a drug they had invented and patented called “Cipro.”
Bayer, AG is a German company, which has plants in various countries,
including the United States.

Bayer was founded in 1863, and is well known for its trademarked
“aspirin” (1899), but not so prominently known for its trademark of
heroin in 1900, marketing it for decades as a children’s cough medicine.
During the first and second world wars, Bayer was involved in chemical
warfare manufacturing, and has spent a considerable amount of time and
money overcoming some of the repercussions of their involvement in those
wars and the atrocities which occurred during them. Despite this, they
remain a well-respected name brand in many households throughout the
world. (GMWatch) Bayer had paid reparations after World War II and had
its patent for aspirin stripped from it and awarded to a U.S. company
due to its involvement with the World Wars. Bayer wasn’t allowed to even
use its name until the year 2000, and so during the anthrax crisis, it
kept a low profile as a deliberate means to avoid appearing
“exploitative of the problem” of the anthrax scare in the United States.

Once the anthrax scare happened, however, Cipro went into high demand,
and people all over North America were stockpiling the drug, making it
even more scarce and driving up the cost. Because only people with
prescriptions could purchase the drug in the United States, Mexican
pharmacies capitalized on the market and starting selling it to U.S.
citizens for a huge profit. Canada became frustrated with Bayer’s
refusal to answer their questions about its ability to meet production
needs in the event the anthrax crisis went global. It suspended Bayer’s
patent and ordered other drug companies to produce their generic
formulas. Bayer immediately threatened such companies with litigation in
the event they violated the patent on Cipro. (Jennings) The U.S.
Congress began considering suspending the Cipro patent as well. The CDC
announced a warning to people stockpiling Cipro that it was a dangerous
drug with serious side effects, which people should not use without
medical supervision.

Many argued that the U.S. suspension threat was simply used to negotiate
down the price of Cipro, and in fact, Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson was instrumental in these negotiations. At no
time during the situation was Bayer unable to fulfill the orders or
needs for Cipro. Bayer had $1 billion in Cipro sales in the year prior
to the anthrax attacks (Herper, 2001). At the time of the crisis,
Bayer’s statement of corporate values was: Our goals are to steadily
increase corporate value and generate a high value added for the benefit
of our stockholders, our employees and the community in every country
in which we operate. We believe that our technical and commercial
expertise involves responsibility to work for the common good and
contribute to sustainable development. (Jennings, 2008) Now, more than a
decade after the crisis, you can review Bayer’s newer mission and
values statements on their U.S. website
(httpss://www.bayer.com/en/mission—values.aspx). Let’s discuss this
scenario using the ethical dilemma resolution models and the information
about social responsibility in our text, as well as using the
International Code of Ethics Article that can be found in Doc Sharing,
as authored by Marianne Jennings, a noted ethics and legal professor.

References: Herper, M. (2001, October 17). Cipro, Anthrax And The Perils
Of Patents. Forbes. Retrieved from:
httpss://www.forbes.com/2001/10/17/1017cipro.html (Accessed on 3/31/2012);
Holmes, P. (2001, November 19). Bayer Responds to Cipro Crisis.
Retrieved March 31, 2012, from
httpss://www.holmesreport.com/opinion-info/1346/Bayer-Responds-to-Cipro-Crisis.aspx;
Why an International Code of Ethics Would Be Good for Business.docx;
Smeltzer, Larry R.; Jennings, Marianne M. (2008); Jennings, M. (2007).
Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment (8th ed., p. 74).
South Western Educational Publishing.; Jernigan et al. (2002).
Investigation of Bioterrorism-Related Anthrax, United States, 2001:
Epidemiologic Findings. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 8(10). Retrieved
March 31, 2012 from
httpss://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/10/02-0353_article; Bayer: A history.
(n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2012, from
httpss://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history.

-1-How should Bayer’s statement of corporate responsibility and their
mission statement (“Bayer: Science For A Better Life.”) impact its
corporate responsibility in the anthrax situation? Specifically, do
Bayer’s corporate values guide the company as to what its social
responsibilities should be with regard to its Cipro product? Why or why
not?
-2-How should the Bayer’s statement of corporate responsibility and
their mission statement (“Bayer: Science For A Better Life.”) impact its
corporate responsibility in the anthrax situation? Specifically, do
Bayer’s corporate values guide the company as to what its social
responsibilities should be with regard to its Cipro product? Why or why
not?
-3-As you think about this situation, actually go back in time to the
fall of 2001. Ultimately, the anthrax attacks were not widespread and
Bayer was able to keep up with its orders for Cipro, but those are facts
we know now that the situation is over (hindsight is 20/20, right?). At
the time this occurred, people were scared, some were even panicked.
They had no idea who was sending the Anthrax or how widespread the
attacks would be or how many more people would die. If a company has
developed a drug (like Cipro) that would be necessary in some type of
widespread outbreak or attack, isn’t that company almost guaranteed that
the greatest demand for their product will be in some type of an
emergency situation (like the one that occurred in the U.S.)? If so,
shouldn’t that company then be prepared to react swiftly including
communicating clearly with those who need the drug?