4 ms·

Your comparison is absurd. The hook-up app doesn't save people's lives. How would you feel if this was the difference between life and death for you or your lov

Your comparison is absurd. The hook-up app doesn't save people's lives. How would you feel if this was the difference between life and death for you or your loved ones?

pen2l 11y ago
Science is hard, making these drugs is hard. It's after years and years, decades even, of research that we determine what might work as a drug... whether it is safe or not, double-checking, triple-checking its efficacy after it has been made, etc. etc. To do this it costs lab space, it costs machines that easily go in the millions, it costs sweat and tears of scientists, it takes the lives of many generations of scientists sometimes. The stakes are already high for those who take on these projects. Already, we have a problem with PhDs in the health sciences field making shit money. You want to further discourage them into going in this field by denying them what little they get now? So that they rather make easy money serving you ads based on the information they've gotten from observing your habits?
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Come on. The scientists are not seeing the lion's share of the money from sky-high drug prices (and besides that, you can see some plainly opportunistic moves like recategorizing drugs to raise the fees that don't have anything whatsoever to do with new research).
  - pinaceae 11y ago
    scientist/founders do, see practically all bio-tech startups. exactly the same as in tech - founders reap the big rewards, individual coders less so.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      How many of these cancer drugs are made by bio-tech startups, exactly?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - danielweber 11y ago
        These don't break it down by "start-up" but: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_... 58% from pharmaceutical companies. 18% from biotech companies.. 16% from universities, transferred to biotech. 8% from universities, transferred to pharma. Pharma and biotech companies do develop some drugs themselves, but the majority model is for a start-up to form around a single drug, and if it looks promising a big player buys them up to finish testing and then market it. If the drug looks promising the company is killed. Venture capital is basically doing the job of drug discovery.
    - pen2l 11y ago
      In my circle of friends at least, PhDs working on various technologies had their names on patents. When big companies bought these patents, they actually received good money. Not retirement money of course, but a few good tens of thousands.
- mercurial 11y ago
  Assuming your premise regarding low salaries is correct (I have no idea), the choice between a small set of people making better money and a much larger group not dying is, morally speaking, fairly straightforward. But I suspect the reality is different. I can imagine a couple of reasons for low salaries: Big Pharma would like nothing more than pay its personnel decently, but they're barely breaking even. Alternatively, the ratio between PhDs and jobs available doesn't work in the favour of PhDs. In which case, Big Pharma making even more money would translate into additional mansions for C-level executives, not better salaries for PhDs. Which explanation do you feel is the most likely?
rayiner 11y ago
The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that people who make hook-up apps (and their investors) deserve to get rich while people who make (and invest in) life-saving drugs don't.
- mercurial 11y ago
  When someone tells you that you're comparing apples and oranges, your conclusion is "ah, but you think apples are better". You could similarly argue for applying the same punishment to a man stealing bread to feed his family as to a Bernie Maddoff, on the principle that bakers deserve to get rich. That said, yes, I think the health sector should be state-run and not operate with a profit motive, but whether or not you agree or with this idea doesn't change the fact that your comparison is flawed.

Your comparison is absurd. The hook-up app doesn't save people's lives. How would you feel if this was the difference between life and death for you or your loved ones?

pen2l 11y ago

Science is hard, making these drugs is hard. It's after years and years, decades even, of research that we determine what might work as a drug... whether it is safe or not, double-checking, triple-checking its efficacy after it has been made, etc. etc. To do this it costs lab space, it costs machines that easily go in the millions, it costs sweat and tears of scientists, it takes the lives of many generations of scientists sometimes. The stakes are already high for those who take on these projects. Already, we have a problem with PhDs in the health sciences field making shit money. You want to further discourage them into going in this field by denying them what little they get now? So that they rather make easy money serving you ads based on the information they've gotten from observing your habits?

emodendroket 11y ago
Come on. The scientists are not seeing the lion's share of the money from sky-high drug prices (and besides that, you can see some plainly opportunistic moves like recategorizing drugs to raise the fees that don't have anything whatsoever to do with new research).
- pinaceae 11y ago
  scientist/founders do, see practically all bio-tech startups. exactly the same as in tech - founders reap the big rewards, individual coders less so.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    How many of these cancer drugs are made by bio-tech startups, exactly?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - danielweber 11y ago
      These don't break it down by "start-up" but: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_... 58% from pharmaceutical companies. 18% from biotech companies.. 16% from universities, transferred to biotech. 8% from universities, transferred to pharma. Pharma and biotech companies do develop some drugs themselves, but the majority model is for a start-up to form around a single drug, and if it looks promising a big player buys them up to finish testing and then market it. If the drug looks promising the company is killed. Venture capital is basically doing the job of drug discovery.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    In my circle of friends at least, PhDs working on various technologies had their names on patents. When big companies bought these patents, they actually received good money. Not retirement money of course, but a few good tens of thousands.
mercurial 11y ago
Assuming your premise regarding low salaries is correct (I have no idea), the choice between a small set of people making better money and a much larger group not dying is, morally speaking, fairly straightforward. But I suspect the reality is different. I can imagine a couple of reasons for low salaries: Big Pharma would like nothing more than pay its personnel decently, but they're barely breaking even. Alternatively, the ratio between PhDs and jobs available doesn't work in the favour of PhDs. In which case, Big Pharma making even more money would translate into additional mansions for C-level executives, not better salaries for PhDs. Which explanation do you feel is the most likely?

rayiner 11y ago

The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is that people who make hook-up apps (and their investors) deserve to get rich while people who make (and invest in) life-saving drugs don't.

mercurial 11y ago
When someone tells you that you're comparing apples and oranges, your conclusion is "ah, but you think apples are better". You could similarly argue for applying the same punishment to a man stealing bread to feed his family as to a Bernie Maddoff, on the principle that bakers deserve to get rich. That said, yes, I think the health sector should be state-run and not operate with a profit motive, but whether or not you agree or with this idea doesn't change the fact that your comparison is flawed.