3 ms·

Are you under the impression that big pharma looks at lobbying with disgust? As for "research" as you put it, I was under the impression that a number of count

Are you under the impression that big pharma looks at lobbying with disgust? As for "research" as you put it, I was under the impression that a number of countries already fund medical research. I'm not privy to how much "filling out forms" and "schmoozing with politicians" this involves, but I have a hard time imagining the methods and goals being worse than the "best practices" of the private sector.

aianus 11y ago
> I'm not privy to how much "filling out forms" and "schmoozing with politicians" this involves My friends reported that their (highly educated and intelligent) supervisors in their university labs spent almost all their time doing funding applications instead of research. I imagine it's not the same in the private sector, you go to work and spend your day working not running around begging for funding because the company is already rich and has already decided to fund the project.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  AFAICT in the private sector its very often the same (and not just in pharma, but in biotech more generally), because in order to pursue a project a principal scientist will need to sell a business plan around it to the business management of the company so that they will devote company resources to it, which may involve securing (or identifying and waiting for the business-side folks to secure) funding via grants, cooperative ventures, etc. to do it. If the company has a big cash stockpile (e.g., because it is either a well-funded startup or a well-established big player) the likelihood of needing to secure outside funding may be less, but the scientist will still likely have to sell the idea to the business team.
  - aianus 11y ago
    Yes, but the business team is more likely to be competent in evaluating the business plans than the government. After all, they've done this sort of thing before and they're incentivized to be objective and develop a popular, effective drug so they can rake in the cash. The government has other priorities (diversity, "fairness in procurement", getting some of the money back in political donations, etc.). That's why incompetents like CGI Federal get massive contracts like healthcare.gov. They're clearly bad at writing software and excellent at navigating procurement. I don't want the pharmaceutical research industry, bad as it is, looking like that.

aianus 11y ago

> I'm not privy to how much "filling out forms" and "schmoozing with politicians" this involves My friends reported that their (highly educated and intelligent) supervisors in their university labs spent almost all their time doing funding applications instead of research. I imagine it's not the same in the private sector, you go to work and spend your day working not running around begging for funding because the company is already rich and has already decided to fund the project.

dragonwriter 11y ago
AFAICT in the private sector its very often the same (and not just in pharma, but in biotech more generally), because in order to pursue a project a principal scientist will need to sell a business plan around it to the business management of the company so that they will devote company resources to it, which may involve securing (or identifying and waiting for the business-side folks to secure) funding via grants, cooperative ventures, etc. to do it. If the company has a big cash stockpile (e.g., because it is either a well-funded startup or a well-established big player) the likelihood of needing to secure outside funding may be less, but the scientist will still likely have to sell the idea to the business team.
- aianus 11y ago
  Yes, but the business team is more likely to be competent in evaluating the business plans than the government. After all, they've done this sort of thing before and they're incentivized to be objective and develop a popular, effective drug so they can rake in the cash. The government has other priorities (diversity, "fairness in procurement", getting some of the money back in political donations, etc.). That's why incompetents like CGI Federal get massive contracts like healthcare.gov. They're clearly bad at writing software and excellent at navigating procurement. I don't want the pharmaceutical research industry, bad as it is, looking like that.