3 ms·

I suspect the opposite. The Scientific American estimates the cost of rbinging a new drug to market is 2.5B and that number has doubled over the past 10 years[1

by on_ 11y ago

I suspect the opposite. The Scientific American estimates the cost of rbinging a new drug to market is 2.5B and that number has doubled over the past 10 years[1]. We need to find a way to allow tighter feedback loops, better data flow and less regulation without purpose. We have amazing technology that allows continual monitoring of vital signs and rapid blood tests etc. If our laws could evolve with our technology we would be in great shape. That would, of course, require elected officials to be qualified in various disciplines, act in the public's best interest and not accept money from lobbyists. [1]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-ne...

mercurial 11y ago
> I suspect the opposite. The Scientific American estimates the cost of rbinging a new drug to market is 2.5B and that number has doubled over the past 10 years[1]. So? > We need to find a way to allow tighter feedback loops, better data flow and less regulation without purpose. Everybody is all for that. Obviously, the question of what is "without purpose" may depend on whom you ask. > That would, of course, require elected officials to be qualified in various disciplines, act in the public's best interest and not accept money from lobbyists. You can't expect politicians to be qualified as everything, but you should expect their cabinets to have a number of specialists.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> less regulation without purpose Everyone agrees with that; all regulation that actually exists or has been proposed has/had a purpose behind it. Individuals may disagree with whether the purpose is desirable, whether the regulation effectively serves the purpose, and whether (assuming they agree that the purpose is beneficial and it is actually served in effect by the regulation) the beneficial effect of serving the purpose is worth any costs that the regulation creates, but those are different issues than "regulation without purpose".
- on_ 11y ago
  of course. I was implying that regulation without a purpose: 1)That is logical, and makes sane tradeoffs. 2)Is in the publics interest instead of lobbyists. 3)Is divined using evidence. We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics: 1) Promotes the creation and development of drugs and the advancement of medical science. 2) Allows for a tight feedback loop and quick sceintific evaluation of new drugs, possibly allowing less dangerous drugs quicker feedback cycles. 3) Lowers the cost to get to market. This is a VERY hard problem to solve as an exercise, but particularly difficult within the current political framework.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics: Unbiased medical experts are not particularly likely to be experts on three points you suggest are critical, since none of those are actually even remotely medical questions.

by on_ 11y ago

mercurial 11y ago

> I suspect the opposite. The Scientific American estimates the cost of rbinging a new drug to market is 2.5B and that number has doubled over the past 10 years[1]. So? > We need to find a way to allow tighter feedback loops, better data flow and less regulation without purpose. Everybody is all for that. Obviously, the question of what is "without purpose" may depend on whom you ask. > That would, of course, require elected officials to be qualified in various disciplines, act in the public's best interest and not accept money from lobbyists. You can't expect politicians to be qualified as everything, but you should expect their cabinets to have a number of specialists.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> less regulation without purpose Everyone agrees with that; all regulation that actually exists or has been proposed has/had a purpose behind it. Individuals may disagree with whether the purpose is desirable, whether the regulation effectively serves the purpose, and whether (assuming they agree that the purpose is beneficial and it is actually served in effect by the regulation) the beneficial effect of serving the purpose is worth any costs that the regulation creates, but those are different issues than "regulation without purpose".

on_ 11y ago
of course. I was implying that regulation without a purpose: 1)That is logical, and makes sane tradeoffs. 2)Is in the publics interest instead of lobbyists. 3)Is divined using evidence. We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics: 1) Promotes the creation and development of drugs and the advancement of medical science. 2) Allows for a tight feedback loop and quick sceintific evaluation of new drugs, possibly allowing less dangerous drugs quicker feedback cycles. 3) Lowers the cost to get to market. This is a VERY hard problem to solve as an exercise, but particularly difficult within the current political framework.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > We need unbiased medical experts to propose a system that works which has the following charachteristics: Unbiased medical experts are not particularly likely to be experts on three points you suggest are critical, since none of those are actually even remotely medical questions.