4 ms·
No IP protection would destroy the pharma industry. Like you said, the cost is not in basic research, it’s in making sure that new compounds do what they are cl
by patentatt 9y ago
No IP protection would destroy the pharma industry. Like you said, the cost is not in basic research, it’s in making sure that new compounds do what they are claimed to do and don’t kill people along the way. But why would anyone go through that process if a generic maker could piggy-back off of that work once it’s completed? There would have to be a redesign of the entire institution as we know it. Maybe that’s a good idea, but just eliminating patents alone would be disasterous without a lot of other changes
- phkahler 9y agoResearcher: "I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them... in mice. We need to do more testing, and in humans." Company: "But that's a naturally occurring virus, we can't patent that so we're not interested. Do something else, or find a way to 'make it better' so we we can patent it and make money." True story. Now imagine this: Researcher: "I've found that this rhinovirus is devastating to certain kinds of tumors when injected into them... in mice. We need to do more testing, and in humans." Oncologist at major center: "We've seen a number of terminal patients with that type of cancer, current treatments don't work especially at stage 4. We could test that virus on a number of people if they were willing to try it." Cancer Patient "Sign me up!" There has to be a way to make this work, and it should cost far less than the current approach. I'd argue that it would cost the government less to fund the studies than to pay medicaid costs for the patented treatments. Sure, change would need to happen but it would happen fast, and in the mean time nobody would eliminate current treatments - they're already established and profitable.