4 ms·

If you are implying that patents are the only way to fund research you are wrong. They are in fact one of the least efficient ways. The NIH funds more research

If you are implying that patents are the only way to fund research you are wrong. They are in fact one of the least efficient ways. The NIH funds more research with a paltry $30 billion than all of pharma does taking $300 billion in patent royalties each year.

crazypyro 11y ago
Do you have a link to a source for this? Not that I doubt you, but that just seems really, really hard to judge without full information and there could be obvious biases...
refurb 11y ago
Uh... that's not true. Total pharma spending on R&D is double that of the NIH. Also, the NIH budget is mostly focused on basic science and much of the work has nothing to do with bringing a new drug to market. Unless you have a great idea on how to replace $60B+ in annual drug development costs, the current system will stay as it is.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- astazangasta 11y ago
  I do! First that is worldwide R&D. In the US it is only $26 billion a year, so we could easily cover it by doubling the NIH budget. Since in exchange we get new drugs at generic prices it more than pays for itself just in money saved on Medicare payouts. Even paying out $60 billion would be cheaper. If that is too socialist for you we can merely replace patents with a prize system, where we award people a large sum for developing a drug. This is what pharma largely does anyway (wait for startups then buy them out once they've done the hard stuff) so not much would change. For $1 billion a piece we can get ten drugs a year at huge savings. I got more ideas, but this suffices to demonstrate how easy this is if you think about it. Patents really are the worst way.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply, you've obviously researched this. I think there are two challenges with your approaches. 1. The expertise needed to bring a drug to market doesn't currently exist within NIH funded entities. They are trying to create it, but have been having a hell of a time. Discovering new science and bringing a drug to market are two very different things. 2. The prize system has it's own challenges. First off, the prizes would have to be huge. Lipitor sales were over $100B during the 10+ years it was on the market. A $2B prize won't mean much. 3. The biggest challenge with the prize system is how do you judge whether or not someone deserves the prize? For example, if we offer a prize for a new antibiotic for multi-drug resistant bacteria, how do you judge whether or not the new drug met the goals? Evaluating a new drug is not black and white at all. What if it kills the bacteria, but is really toxic? What if it works, but not for everyone? Do they still get the prize?

crazypyro 11y ago

Do you have a link to a source for this? Not that I doubt you, but that just seems really, really hard to judge without full information and there could be obvious biases...

refurb 11y ago

Uh... that's not true. Total pharma spending on R&D is double that of the NIH. Also, the NIH budget is mostly focused on basic science and much of the work has nothing to do with bringing a new drug to market. Unless you have a great idea on how to replace $60B+ in annual drug development costs, the current system will stay as it is.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
astazangasta 11y ago
I do! First that is worldwide R&D. In the US it is only $26 billion a year, so we could easily cover it by doubling the NIH budget. Since in exchange we get new drugs at generic prices it more than pays for itself just in money saved on Medicare payouts. Even paying out $60 billion would be cheaper. If that is too socialist for you we can merely replace patents with a prize system, where we award people a large sum for developing a drug. This is what pharma largely does anyway (wait for startups then buy them out once they've done the hard stuff) so not much would change. For $1 billion a piece we can get ten drugs a year at huge savings. I got more ideas, but this suffices to demonstrate how easy this is if you think about it. Patents really are the worst way.
- refurb 11y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply, you've obviously researched this. I think there are two challenges with your approaches. 1. The expertise needed to bring a drug to market doesn't currently exist within NIH funded entities. They are trying to create it, but have been having a hell of a time. Discovering new science and bringing a drug to market are two very different things. 2. The prize system has it's own challenges. First off, the prizes would have to be huge. Lipitor sales were over $100B during the 10+ years it was on the market. A $2B prize won't mean much. 3. The biggest challenge with the prize system is how do you judge whether or not someone deserves the prize? For example, if we offer a prize for a new antibiotic for multi-drug resistant bacteria, how do you judge whether or not the new drug met the goals? Evaluating a new drug is not black and white at all. What if it kills the bacteria, but is really toxic? What if it works, but not for everyone? Do they still get the prize?