4 ms·
Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your own s
by nudge 16y ago
Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your own source rightly points out:
"the total cost of bringing a new drug to market [is] around $800 million, in year 2000 dollars... [T]his figure suggests a spectacular increase in the cost of innovating. This increase is due, mostly, to the capitalization of the longer and more expensive clinical trials the FDA requires."
It may well be that patents were not always necessary for drug development. It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago> It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now. Correct. We may want to test for that, if at all possible. Also, if we manage to reduce the costs of clinical trials, we may make that point moot. But in the end, I fear we will have to set priorities, and make compromises. I just hope that it will be based on rational judgements, instead of political stances alone.
- binaryfinery 16y agoSimple explanation: patents and the FDA represent barriers to entry for new competitors. Costs going up just means more money spent within the industry, and more profit to be taken later. Costs (and profits) going up are a consequence of patents and regulation, not the other way around. Remove patents and regulation and watch costs plummet.
- loup-vaillant 16y agoWell, we could remove patents, but removing (or lightening) regulation may be a bit more tricky: you wouldn't want Big Pharma to release something that's more a poison than a medication.
- binaryfinery 16y agoAnd how has regulation changed this? What extra laws do we need in place to make sure companies don't kill people other than "dont kill people"?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago> And how has regulation changed this? I don't know. Nor am I aware of any study which shows regulation's effects, or lack thereof. I'm just saying that if regulation has benefits, they should be compared to the drawbacks before we forfeit them. If it has no benefit, of course get rid of it. Anyway, as I said, I don't know a thing about pharmaceutical regulations. If you do, a few pointers would be welcome.