5 ms·

>spending billions in capital developing drugs to save lives Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money.

>spending billions in capital developing drugs to save lives Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money. And doing it to make money, given the patent system, is the less ethical option when others would do it to save lives but are now forbidden to do such.

rayiner 11y ago
Who cares why they're doing it--the point is that their money-making endeavors have the effect of saving lives, while other companies spend tons of capital on things that do not have the effect of saving lives. And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organizati... http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ > The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people. The patent system does prevent people from getting at lower costs. I continue to have hope for countries that invalidate drug patents, and for further methods to be developed to drive down the cost of drug production (so as to reduce the barrier to entry for drug production). If the patent system doesn't stop the non-profit development of drugs, then the breaking of patents and the pirating of patented drugs should in no way significantly dent pharmaceutical company profits, right?
  - harryh 11y ago
    Has either PATH or the Gates Foundation ever developed a drug? Honest question here, I just don't know?
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      http://www.path.org/about/measuring-impact.php http://www.path.org/about/measuring-impact.php It's from 2011, a quick search didn't find a more current report: "After collecting data on indicators, PATH project teams use an online tool to enter results, which are aggregated by phase of development. A team developing a malaria vaccine, for example, reports completion of clinical trials with children in Mozambique. This result is aggregated with data from other teams conducting clinical trials of other products. Top-level 2011 findings include the following: PATH had 199 technologies and products in our development pipeline in 2011. Fifty-one products moved forward one or more phases in the pipeline. Six products were registered, three were licensed, and two were prequalified by the World Health Organization. PATH had activities in 68 developing countries. We trained more than 91,000 people in 2011 and worked on 101 policies, strategies, and guidelines. At the global level, eight guidelines and one strategy supported by PATH’s work were approved by global decision-making bodies. At the national level, 36 policies, strategies, and guidelines supported by PATH’s work were approved. More than 74.5 million people benefitted from PATH’s work. More than $100 million in funding was mobilized to scale up PATH-championed interventions. PATH was awarded 83 grants valued at nearly $160 million." Regarding the Gates Foundation, they don't directly research drugs, but contribute heavily to those working on polio, malaria, and HIV.
Kalium 11y ago
> Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money. Not really. It assumes that the drugs save lives. If you pay $X for drug that was developed to save your live or $X for an identical drug that was developed to do a job and turn a profit, it's the same $X and the same drug. Why people are doing things is generally less important than that they are. This is one of those cases. Demanding a particular mindset when all other things are equal is a little bit silly.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >to save lives It pretty much does assume it there. And it does matter because of how one would react. If your end goal is saving lives, you wouldn't spend a lot working for a cure to baldness and you wouldn't buy rights to a drug and then jack up the price just because you could.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    OK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Act like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - Kalium 11y ago
        Thank you for your answer.

rayiner 11y ago

Who cares why they're doing it--the point is that their money-making endeavors have the effect of saving lives, while other companies spend tons of capital on things that do not have the effect of saving lives. And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> And who is out there willing to spend billions developing new drugs while giving them away for free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(global_health_organizati... http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ > The patent system certainly isn't stopping those people. The patent system does prevent people from getting at lower costs. I continue to have hope for countries that invalidate drug patents, and for further methods to be developed to drive down the cost of drug production (so as to reduce the barrier to entry for drug production). If the patent system doesn't stop the non-profit development of drugs, then the breaking of patents and the pirating of patented drugs should in no way significantly dent pharmaceutical company profits, right?
- harryh 11y ago
  Has either PATH or the Gates Foundation ever developed a drug? Honest question here, I just don't know?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    http://www.path.org/about/measuring-impact.php http://www.path.org/about/measuring-impact.php It's from 2011, a quick search didn't find a more current report: "After collecting data on indicators, PATH project teams use an online tool to enter results, which are aggregated by phase of development. A team developing a malaria vaccine, for example, reports completion of clinical trials with children in Mozambique. This result is aggregated with data from other teams conducting clinical trials of other products. Top-level 2011 findings include the following: PATH had 199 technologies and products in our development pipeline in 2011. Fifty-one products moved forward one or more phases in the pipeline. Six products were registered, three were licensed, and two were prequalified by the World Health Organization. PATH had activities in 68 developing countries. We trained more than 91,000 people in 2011 and worked on 101 policies, strategies, and guidelines. At the global level, eight guidelines and one strategy supported by PATH’s work were approved by global decision-making bodies. At the national level, 36 policies, strategies, and guidelines supported by PATH’s work were approved. More than 74.5 million people benefitted from PATH’s work. More than $100 million in funding was mobilized to scale up PATH-championed interventions. PATH was awarded 83 grants valued at nearly $160 million." Regarding the Gates Foundation, they don't directly research drugs, but contribute heavily to those working on polio, malaria, and HIV.

Kalium 11y ago

> Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money. Not really. It assumes that the drugs save lives. If you pay $X for drug that was developed to save your live or $X for an identical drug that was developed to do a job and turn a profit, it's the same $X and the same drug. Why people are doing things is generally less important than that they are. This is one of those cases. Demanding a particular mindset when all other things are equal is a little bit silly.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>to save lives It pretty much does assume it there. And it does matter because of how one would react. If your end goal is saving lives, you wouldn't spend a lot working for a cure to baldness and you wouldn't buy rights to a drug and then jack up the price just because you could.
- Kalium 11y ago
  OK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Act like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kalium 11y ago
      Thank you for your answer.