7 ms·

What could be done to encourage pharmaceutical research/progress? Would something like demanding (say) at least 20% of the profits should go into research be v

What could be done to encourage pharmaceutical research/progress? Would something like demanding (say) at least 20% of the profits should go into research be viable?

astazangasta 11y ago
How about funding this stuff publicly, where there is an actual democratic peer-review process? The only reason people end up working for pharma is because they can't get a grant. Just up the NIH & NSF budgets, and scientists will be free to work without profiteering assholes to worry about. It's not that fucking complicated.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  Well I would say it's complicated: we're talking about an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars, an army of researchers and a network of institutions with discoveries made all around. Also, simply increasing government budget frees scientists to do work (great!) but does nothing about the "profiteering assholes" that already exist, they can still play around with drug prices for profit simply because people are hostage to their drugs. Offloading all work to government may have perils too; markets are usually more quick at adapting with price signaling, and overall efficiency is usually higher in those organizations (less bureaucracy, more agility).
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    Drugs do not operate in a market. It is definitely not true with patented drugs (which operate under a government monopoly), and as we're seeing now that monopolies are taking over generics that's becoming less true there as well. In addition, it's simply false that businesses are more efficient than the government. For example, compare overhead in public health care systems (e.g. Medicare) to private insurance systems and you'll find that the overhead is vastly lower in the public systems - something like 3% vs. 15%. Giant businesses are as burdened by bureaucracy as any other large institution, and they're only as efficient as they need to be, which in an industry with monopoly rents is not very efficient (pharma spends as much on research as the government for much less in research outcomes). Government at least has Republicans keeping it trim.
    - darkmighty 11y ago
      They do not operate in a market, but there are market-driven pressures for developing new drugs: efficient companies assign research priority according to their expected returns from drug development. In any case, reform is definitively needed; and complaining without demanding reform is pointless. Discovering new drugs is a scientific endeavor and so it really should be as open as possible. I am a little skeptical of plain massive government research agencies, but maybe it's a good way to go. Maybe patent reform or something else is instead better. If you look at machine learning research the industry is not bad at sharing results because of two factors, apparently: 1) Companies know that progress will be much faster if everyone decides to share 2) To attract to researchers, they need to show they do high caliber research and share.
- ghostDancer 11y ago
  I can hear the "Socialism" shouts from here, that goes against the god of free market, and how the hell the corporations are going to get the funds to buy politicians.Next you are going to ask is basic health care for the poor.
  - radmuzom 11y ago
    Another interesting thing I have noticed in online discussions. Whenever it comes to putting more money in hands of the few generally considered "rich", one of the standard explanations is that they will invest and create more jobs. However, things which will put extra money in the hands of "ordinary" people; like reduction in high prices or a higher wage always comes with a threat of reduction in jobs. Money in the hands of ordinary people is almost always spent or invested, thus providing a large boost to the economy (perhaps after a short term of 6-12 months of lower employment due to the rise in cost of doing business).
    - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      That line is on Page 1 of the Book of Political Lies that gets rolled out whenever there's a fight over resource allocation. The reality is that "invest and create more jobs" actually means "fire as many people as you can, cut wages as far as they go, make all hires as at-will as possible, and offshore to save money if you possibly can, even if it hurts the company in the long term." The rest of the reality is that our political system is an assholeocracy. The people responsible for this kind of idiocy should be nowhere near policy - not just because of some abstract sense of moral wrong, but because it's incredibly toxic to real economic and social development.
  - aianus 11y ago
    It is better for rich people to have power than politicians. At least their wealth might have something to do with skill (creating a successful drug in the past, etc.)
    - wiz21c 11y ago
      Read the price of inequality by Stiglitz, he explains whay this not quite true anymore (and that's unfortunate)...
theophrastus 11y ago
"demanding"? this is an industry which fires us if we ask for a raise, or hint at collective bargaining, or even if the 'big hit' has just been discovered and research is foolishly seen as unnecessary for a while. this is an industry where foreign work visas are rife, with threats of the jobs being declared 'unnecessary' if extra hours aren't put in (with the poor folks having to return to their original countries). this is the industry which tries to offshore as many aspects of the process as possible. there is no "demanding" anything, unless you already have another situation lined-up; and even then they threaten you with NDAs and non-competition clauses.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  I think that was "demanding" in the sense of giving regulatory bodies authority to force things like that.
  - theophrastus 11y ago
    In the states there really is no active regulatory agency to pursue this; the FDA having been all but gutted, (all the clinical 'safety' research is now done by the applying company itself). One only has examine who are among the largest political donors to both parties to understand why this might be.
- CaptainZapp 11y ago
  this is the industry which tries to offshore as many aspects of the process as possible And this : http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ Is a very interesting and quite frightening take on the potential consequences of such offshoring.

What could be done to encourage pharmaceutical research/progress? Would something like demanding (say) at least 20% of the profits should go into research be viable?

astazangasta 11y ago

How about funding this stuff publicly, where there is an actual democratic peer-review process? The only reason people end up working for pharma is because they can't get a grant. Just up the NIH & NSF budgets, and scientists will be free to work without profiteering assholes to worry about. It's not that fucking complicated.

darkmighty 11y ago
Well I would say it's complicated: we're talking about an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars, an army of researchers and a network of institutions with discoveries made all around. Also, simply increasing government budget frees scientists to do work (great!) but does nothing about the "profiteering assholes" that already exist, they can still play around with drug prices for profit simply because people are hostage to their drugs. Offloading all work to government may have perils too; markets are usually more quick at adapting with price signaling, and overall efficiency is usually higher in those organizations (less bureaucracy, more agility).
- astazangasta 11y ago
  Drugs do not operate in a market. It is definitely not true with patented drugs (which operate under a government monopoly), and as we're seeing now that monopolies are taking over generics that's becoming less true there as well. In addition, it's simply false that businesses are more efficient than the government. For example, compare overhead in public health care systems (e.g. Medicare) to private insurance systems and you'll find that the overhead is vastly lower in the public systems - something like 3% vs. 15%. Giant businesses are as burdened by bureaucracy as any other large institution, and they're only as efficient as they need to be, which in an industry with monopoly rents is not very efficient (pharma spends as much on research as the government for much less in research outcomes). Government at least has Republicans keeping it trim.
  - darkmighty 11y ago
    They do not operate in a market, but there are market-driven pressures for developing new drugs: efficient companies assign research priority according to their expected returns from drug development. In any case, reform is definitively needed; and complaining without demanding reform is pointless. Discovering new drugs is a scientific endeavor and so it really should be as open as possible. I am a little skeptical of plain massive government research agencies, but maybe it's a good way to go. Maybe patent reform or something else is instead better. If you look at machine learning research the industry is not bad at sharing results because of two factors, apparently: 1) Companies know that progress will be much faster if everyone decides to share 2) To attract to researchers, they need to show they do high caliber research and share.
ghostDancer 11y ago
I can hear the "Socialism" shouts from here, that goes against the god of free market, and how the hell the corporations are going to get the funds to buy politicians.Next you are going to ask is basic health care for the poor.
- radmuzom 11y ago
  Another interesting thing I have noticed in online discussions. Whenever it comes to putting more money in hands of the few generally considered "rich", one of the standard explanations is that they will invest and create more jobs. However, things which will put extra money in the hands of "ordinary" people; like reduction in high prices or a higher wage always comes with a threat of reduction in jobs. Money in the hands of ordinary people is almost always spent or invested, thus providing a large boost to the economy (perhaps after a short term of 6-12 months of lower employment due to the rise in cost of doing business).
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    That line is on Page 1 of the Book of Political Lies that gets rolled out whenever there's a fight over resource allocation. The reality is that "invest and create more jobs" actually means "fire as many people as you can, cut wages as far as they go, make all hires as at-will as possible, and offshore to save money if you possibly can, even if it hurts the company in the long term." The rest of the reality is that our political system is an assholeocracy. The people responsible for this kind of idiocy should be nowhere near policy - not just because of some abstract sense of moral wrong, but because it's incredibly toxic to real economic and social development.
- aianus 11y ago
  It is better for rich people to have power than politicians. At least their wealth might have something to do with skill (creating a successful drug in the past, etc.)
  - wiz21c 11y ago
    Read the price of inequality by Stiglitz, he explains whay this not quite true anymore (and that's unfortunate)...

theophrastus 11y ago

"demanding"? this is an industry which fires us if we ask for a raise, or hint at collective bargaining, or even if the 'big hit' has just been discovered and research is foolishly seen as unnecessary for a while. this is an industry where foreign work visas are rife, with threats of the jobs being declared 'unnecessary' if extra hours aren't put in (with the poor folks having to return to their original countries). this is the industry which tries to offshore as many aspects of the process as possible. there is no "demanding" anything, unless you already have another situation lined-up; and even then they threaten you with NDAs and non-competition clauses.

vonmoltke 11y ago
I think that was "demanding" in the sense of giving regulatory bodies authority to force things like that.
- theophrastus 11y ago
  In the states there really is no active regulatory agency to pursue this; the FDA having been all but gutted, (all the clinical 'safety' research is now done by the applying company itself). One only has examine who are among the largest political donors to both parties to understand why this might be.
CaptainZapp 11y ago
this is the industry which tries to offshore as many aspects of the process as possible And this : http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/dirty-medicine/ Is a very interesting and quite frightening take on the potential consequences of such offshoring.