4 ms·

Pharma takes from publicly funded research (globally) and then turns around and milks the public while lining their own pockets. I work tangentially in the phar

by ksk 10y ago

Pharma takes from publicly funded research (globally) and then turns around and milks the public while lining their own pockets. I work tangentially in the pharma world, and much of the complicated biochemistry, assays, fermentation protocols etc have been figured out at universities. The value that Pharma companies' R&D brings in, is primarily in jacking up the downstream product yield so they can make money, and sometimes, lower costs.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
refurb 10y ago
Having worked in the industry, this is widly inaccurate. First off, a majority of drug discovered (~80%) are discovered by private companies.[1] Of the 252 drugs approved from '97 to '05... 58% from pharmaceutical companies, 18% from biotech companies, 16% from universities, transferred to biotech 8% from universities, transferred to pharma Second of all, discovering a drug gets you about 1/4 of the way to an approved, marketed drug. Typically the breakdown between research and development costs are 1/3 and 2/3. No academic institutions do the development part, where most of the cost is. [1]http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/whe...
- louithethrid 10y ago
  Oh, those discovered drugs. They are discovered like bathsalts are- glue a molecule here and there to a know compound, renew the patent. I want to know how the R&D looks for compound group discovery. Everything else is just repackaging with a chemistry kit.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Since you didn't bother to read the article, let me summarize it for you: 118 of the drugs during this period were considered to have scientific novelty (46%), and of those: 44% were from pharmaceutical companies. 25% were from biotech companies, and 31% were from universities (transferred to either biotech or pharma) Of the 118 scientifically novel drugs (new MOA, etc), 69% were NOT from academia. That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug.
    - ksk 10y ago
      >That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug. Please don't insult our intelligence.The context for this discussion is about greedy companies using existing research for free and contributing nothing back. The linked article doesn't show which scientific research contributed to the product development. Universities are not all primarily engaged in drug discovery.
      - refurb 10y ago
        The article show where the drug was discovered. And as I mentioned, almost 80% were discovered by a private company. Now, if you'd like to claim that that discovery was based on science paid for by the gov't, I won't disagree, but continuing that line of thought we could claim that drug companies are greedy because they are taking advantage of organic chemists who did work 200 years ago.
        louithethrid 10y ago
        The problem is that they have no incentive to actually cure. And near not incentive to provide cheap medication- which the patent system incentives you too, by running out after x Years. (Unless you are a frozzen Princess aka Disney) Lots of diseases are only researched at universitys. They have however a incentive, to sell anything expensive, to a audience desperate (that alone is a free market killer). And they do. I just try to understand how one can defend a held-hostage situation with free market rethoric.
- ksk 10y ago
  That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. OF COURSE the Pharmas spend money on product development. They can't expect that for free too!! They already benefit a lot from publicly funded R&D, and contribute very little back in terms of pure science R&D. I work in vaccine automation and lemme tell you, the secret sauce to getting high yield ain't leaving the company.. ever. >No academic institutions do the development part, where most of the cost is. Because they got for free all of the decades of scientific research.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Because they got for free all of the decades of scientific research. Yes, the scientific research that cost maybe 1% of the total cost of bringing the drug to market. Makes sense that the company should share some of the wealth.
    - ksk 10y ago
      Incorrect. They contribute _zero_ to our understanding of science. Its easier to build a bridge after someone else has already figured out what does and doesn't work. I don't blame them completely for using public domain information since there is no point reinventing the wheel. But after they've built their company on the backs of taxpayers who funded the research, we'd be fine if they just said thank-you and went on their way, instead of turning back and gouging everyone.
      - refurb 10y ago
        They contribute _zero_ to our understanding of science. I definitely disagree here. There has been plenty of basic science discovered at private companies. I do agree they are hesitant to share it, but that's doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A great example of the Upjohn dihydroxylation reaction. Discovered at Upjohn Pharmaceuticals, freely disseminated through journal publications and now a key technology in organic synthesis.

by ksk 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

refurb 10y ago

Having worked in the industry, this is widly inaccurate. First off, a majority of drug discovered (~80%) are discovered by private companies.[1] Of the 252 drugs approved from '97 to '05... 58% from pharmaceutical companies, 18% from biotech companies, 16% from universities, transferred to biotech 8% from universities, transferred to pharma Second of all, discovering a drug gets you about 1/4 of the way to an approved, marketed drug. Typically the breakdown between research and development costs are 1/3 and 2/3. No academic institutions do the development part, where most of the cost is. [1]http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/11/04/whe...

louithethrid 10y ago
Oh, those discovered drugs. They are discovered like bathsalts are- glue a molecule here and there to a know compound, renew the patent. I want to know how the R&D looks for compound group discovery. Everything else is just repackaging with a chemistry kit.
- refurb 10y ago
  Since you didn't bother to read the article, let me summarize it for you: 118 of the drugs during this period were considered to have scientific novelty (46%), and of those: 44% were from pharmaceutical companies. 25% were from biotech companies, and 31% were from universities (transferred to either biotech or pharma) Of the 118 scientifically novel drugs (new MOA, etc), 69% were NOT from academia. That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug.
  - ksk 10y ago
    >That is, academia has zero to do with the discovery all the way up to the approval of the drug. Please don't insult our intelligence.The context for this discussion is about greedy companies using existing research for free and contributing nothing back. The linked article doesn't show which scientific research contributed to the product development. Universities are not all primarily engaged in drug discovery.
    - refurb 10y ago
      The article show where the drug was discovered. And as I mentioned, almost 80% were discovered by a private company. Now, if you'd like to claim that that discovery was based on science paid for by the gov't, I won't disagree, but continuing that line of thought we could claim that drug companies are greedy because they are taking advantage of organic chemists who did work 200 years ago.
      - louithethrid 10y ago
        The problem is that they have no incentive to actually cure. And near not incentive to provide cheap medication- which the patent system incentives you too, by running out after x Years. (Unless you are a frozzen Princess aka Disney) Lots of diseases are only researched at universitys. They have however a incentive, to sell anything expensive, to a audience desperate (that alone is a free market killer). And they do. I just try to understand how one can defend a held-hostage situation with free market rethoric.
ksk 10y ago
That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. OF COURSE the Pharmas spend money on product development. They can't expect that for free too!! They already benefit a lot from publicly funded R&D, and contribute very little back in terms of pure science R&D. I work in vaccine automation and lemme tell you, the secret sauce to getting high yield ain't leaving the company.. ever. >No academic institutions do the development part, where most of the cost is. Because they got for free all of the decades of scientific research.
- refurb 10y ago
  Because they got for free all of the decades of scientific research. Yes, the scientific research that cost maybe 1% of the total cost of bringing the drug to market. Makes sense that the company should share some of the wealth.
  - ksk 10y ago
    Incorrect. They contribute _zero_ to our understanding of science. Its easier to build a bridge after someone else has already figured out what does and doesn't work. I don't blame them completely for using public domain information since there is no point reinventing the wheel. But after they've built their company on the backs of taxpayers who funded the research, we'd be fine if they just said thank-you and went on their way, instead of turning back and gouging everyone.
    - refurb 10y ago
      They contribute _zero_ to our understanding of science. I definitely disagree here. There has been plenty of basic science discovered at private companies. I do agree they are hesitant to share it, but that's doesn't mean it doesn't happen. A great example of the Upjohn dihydroxylation reaction. Discovered at Upjohn Pharmaceuticals, freely disseminated through journal publications and now a key technology in organic synthesis.