3 ms·

You've hit the nail on the head. I spent several years in one of the biggest antibiotics research centers in big pharma. I watched as they systematically disban

by JunkDNA 17y ago

You've hit the nail on the head. I spent several years in one of the biggest antibiotics research centers in big pharma. I watched as they systematically disbanded it. The business folks had decided that there was no money in antibiotics. The reason? The FDA (and similar agencies in other countries) are pretty much guaranteed to make any new, very successful antibiotic a "drug of last resort". This means you can only give it to an individual who has failed all the standard line therapy. From a business perspective, why develop something if you are never going to be able to sell it in decent enough quantities to make a profit? Now, you could argue that at some point in the future, that drug will become standard line therapy when all the current front line drugs are completely useless. Unfortunately, by that time the drug is off patent and generic competition will ensure there won't be much profit. This is a complex situation, and I'm not pretending that there is an easy solution. It seems there are a confluence of regulations and politics that conspire to prevent serious attempts at new antibiotics development. The situation is changing somewhat, and my hope is that once the problem becomes more acute, the necessary incentives will be aligned.

jrockway 17y ago
"Hi, we're the government. Instead of bombing Iraq, we would like to buy the IP for this critical drug you developed." It's already developed, and they don't want to commercialize it, so why not sell the IP to the government or a charity. (The government could even theoretically compel the agreement via eminent domain. Or, the pharmaceutical company could donate the drug to the public domain and take a massive tax write off.)
- JunkDNA 17y ago
  Drug companies do sell or give away IP from time to time. But even in the scenario you suggest, with finite resources, why put money into antibiotics development? Why not just fund cancer research at a higher level? I think most pharmas wouldn't want to take the risk that the governmnt would leave them holding the bag. Contrary to the popular meme, drug companies don't generally want to sit on a drug that is ready to go. But all that aside, there is nothing stopping the NIH from starting a research program and developing their own antibiotics (or any academic institution). This happens a bit already, but then it comes time to run the clinical trials and develop the research compound into an actual medicine. This requires expertise and infrastructure that does not exist in the public sector at a sufficient level to get the job done.

by JunkDNA 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

"Hi, we're the government. Instead of bombing Iraq, we would like to buy the IP for this critical drug you developed." It's already developed, and they don't want to commercialize it, so why not sell the IP to the government or a charity. (The government could even theoretically compel the agreement via eminent domain. Or, the pharmaceutical company could donate the drug to the public domain and take a massive tax write off.)

JunkDNA 17y ago
Drug companies do sell or give away IP from time to time. But even in the scenario you suggest, with finite resources, why put money into antibiotics development? Why not just fund cancer research at a higher level? I think most pharmas wouldn't want to take the risk that the governmnt would leave them holding the bag. Contrary to the popular meme, drug companies don't generally want to sit on a drug that is ready to go. But all that aside, there is nothing stopping the NIH from starting a research program and developing their own antibiotics (or any academic institution). This happens a bit already, but then it comes time to run the clinical trials and develop the research compound into an actual medicine. This requires expertise and infrastructure that does not exist in the public sector at a sufficient level to get the job done.