4 ms·

/...they needed to modify the molecule.. because the initial patent on rapamycin expired in 1992. The company would need a novel compound to market it in oncolo

• colechristensen 10y ago
  >Has anyone devised a Shkreli-proof solution to this public policy issue? A tax on pharma profits which can be offset by both R&D on un-patentable medicine and production of out-of-patent medicine. This would go to fund (along with public funds) open drug research with statutory public domain results.
  • tominous 10y ago
    That seems like only a partial solution. How do you allocate the resources efficiently where they are needed most? How do you avoid waste? How do you avoid kickbacks and corruption and pork-barelling? How do you minimise administrative costs and delays? Patents are good in that they tap into market economics to provide those functions, but they seem incomplete in cases like this.
    • cam_l 10y ago
      "How do you avoid waste? How do you avoid kickbacks and corruption and pork-barelling?" This is often brought up in relation to public vs private funding. But private funding is also massively wasteful and also involves a lot of pork barrelling. It just isn't centralised or accountable. Speculation, failed products (or worse yet, successful but bad or useless products), failed businesses, and sales, compliance, patent and procurement costs, all sit on top of the cost of designing and producing drugs. All split up between different parties initially, but in the end shouldered by the general public, both in outright costs and also in opportunity costs. I reckon we could bear quite a bit of waste before it became worse than the private sector.
      • tominous 10y ago
        I don't see how public spending is immune to speculation, failed products, compliance and procurement costs! The rest are features, not bugs: * failed businesses free up resources for more productive activity * sales provide a feedback loop to ensure an efficient level of production * patents provide an incentive for fast deployment of new technologies And private spending is far more accountable because if an investor loses too much money they are out of the game, whereas if a bureaucrat or politician spends too much money they gain a bigger budget and a captive constituency. Anyway I'm not too interested in this general discussion; I'd be more keen on hearing if there are specific solutions to solve this particular problem, whether using private or public money. Not just "fund it" which isn't really meaningful without details.
        • cam_l 10y ago
          Well, I never said that it was not, although I think the mix is somewhat different between private and public. Speculation and failed products might be reduced with public funding, but procurement costs might be increased, for example. Anyway, I was making the point that while the costs of those things might exist for both sectors—in the private sector they are split between multiple parties but they are invisible and unaccountable—in the end they are still borne by the consumer. On top of all that, you have lost opportunity costs ie.in a private funded system we end up paying for things we don't even need, rather than paying too much for something we do. I just see this issue of public sector waste raised, and it seems to me more a shibboleth than an accurate portrayal of the situation. Which is not to say there are not very real issues around corruption and poor procurement with government. But these exist in the private sector also, we just call it business.
• noonespecial 10y ago
  Its stuff like this that makes me think the Fermi paradox might have a perfectly obvious solution...