5 ms·

> That's not really always the case. In the case of orphan drugs it would often be much cheaper overall to have the government fund production instead of granti

by darawk 9y ago

> That's not really always the case. In the case of orphan drugs it would often be much cheaper overall to have the government fund production instead of granting new exclusive rights to out of patent medications to entities like Skhreli. You're conflating two things. Orphan drugs are drugs that aren't profitable to produce, for whatever reason. Shkreli did something a bit different and more complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine#Availability_and_price https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine#Availability_and... > NIH already funds something close to half of drug research. Even more if you include basic research that has a longer time horizon. The NIH spends 32[1] billion per year, whereas the global spending is ~160[2] billion. So around 20%. That's a lot, but not nearly half. > Overall spending would go down, with the side-effect that there would be less penis pill popup ads and way less funding for the Super Bowl halftime show. That's a fairly simplistic interpretation of the world. In general, companies tend to be much more efficient at spending their money than governments. We should expect a substantially higher level of productivity per dollar from businesses than we get from government spending. There's definitely a reasonable debate to be had about public funding models, but it ought to be properly contextualized by the realities. [1] - https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding https://www.nih.gov/grants-funding [2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/309466/global-r-and-d-expenditure-for-pharmaceuticals/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/309466/global-r-and-d-ex... The global R&D spend is

ergothus 9y ago
> In general, companies tend to be much more efficient at spending their money than governments. True, though one has to remember three things: more efficient is not necessarily very efficient; a companies goal is profit, not the best product/result; and companies factor in the ability to fail. The successful company was more effective with their money, but there may be numerous failed efforts and if you factored in their costs the balance is different. After the fact we ascribe great intelligence to the choices of the successful companies rather than the same intelligence but more luck than the unsuccessful companies. Which doesn't contradict any of your points - I'm just pointing out to others tgat it isn't as simple as industry good with money, govt bad with money.
rectang 9y ago
> We should expect a substantially higher level of productivity per dollar from businesses than we get from government spending. Private industry has been very effective indeed at hooking millions of people on opiates. Meanwhile, where are all those new antibiotics? Market competition is an important element missing from government research, but commercial entities have their own pathologies. > There's definitely a reasonable debate to be had about public funding models, but it ought to be properly contextualized by the realities. I favor acknowledging that all markets are constructed, even supposedly "unregulated" ones. The trick is then to construct hybrid models incorporating marketplaces and informed by the limitations of both government and industry.
- pitaj 9y ago
  I love how you managed you blame the opiate crisis on pharma companies, when it's directly tired to the consequences of drug prohibition by governments.
  - nicoburns 9y ago
    Is the opiate crisis really tied to drug prohibition? I'm sympathetic to the idea of reducig restrictions on dru use, but drugs are prohibited all over the world, and yet it is the US where opiate painkillers are overproscribed that has a big opiates afdiction problem...
  - rectang 9y ago
    Oxycontin is legal. Many of those who became addicts would not have save for sinister machinations by Purdue Pharma. See this article on "Oxycontin's 12-hour problem": http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ I don't like prohibition and the recreational drug market is ripe for reform. There are better and worse ways to do that -- see Mark Kleiman's writings for strategies to construct legal marijuana markets where the incentives for companies to manufacture addicts are minimized. But the opiate crisis is not an example of supply inadequacy due to prohibition. The pharmaceutical industry has artificially increased demand.
louhike 9y ago
> The NIH spends 32[1] billion per year, whereas the global spending is ~160[2] billion. So around 20%. That's a lot, but not nearly half. I don't understand how comparing the spending of an American institution to worldwide spending is relevant. NIH isn't the only governmental institution doing research. But I may not understand something.
- darawk 9y ago
  I was just responding to his point.
reacweb 9y ago
I think your 160 billions include advertising and lobbying.
Retric 9y ago
Dollar value is a meaningless comparison. The cost of running a tiny drug study in the US is insane and only done because of how the FDA operates. It's really bad incentives all around. Consider, how much money drug companies spend advertising, now reolise there are basically one new drug per week or less if you exclude packing drifts A and drug B in one pill and calling it something else. Doctors can easily keep up with that rate of new drugs without a lot of effort.
refurb 9y ago
The NIH spends 32[1] billion per year That's true, but a fraction of that is spent on actual drug discovery. The NIH funds a lot of non-pharmaceutical research.

by darawk 9y ago

ergothus 9y ago

> In general, companies tend to be much more efficient at spending their money than governments. True, though one has to remember three things: more efficient is not necessarily very efficient; a companies goal is profit, not the best product/result; and companies factor in the ability to fail. The successful company was more effective with their money, but there may be numerous failed efforts and if you factored in their costs the balance is different. After the fact we ascribe great intelligence to the choices of the successful companies rather than the same intelligence but more luck than the unsuccessful companies. Which doesn't contradict any of your points - I'm just pointing out to others tgat it isn't as simple as industry good with money, govt bad with money.

rectang 9y ago

> We should expect a substantially higher level of productivity per dollar from businesses than we get from government spending. Private industry has been very effective indeed at hooking millions of people on opiates. Meanwhile, where are all those new antibiotics? Market competition is an important element missing from government research, but commercial entities have their own pathologies. > There's definitely a reasonable debate to be had about public funding models, but it ought to be properly contextualized by the realities. I favor acknowledging that all markets are constructed, even supposedly "unregulated" ones. The trick is then to construct hybrid models incorporating marketplaces and informed by the limitations of both government and industry.

pitaj 9y ago
I love how you managed you blame the opiate crisis on pharma companies, when it's directly tired to the consequences of drug prohibition by governments.
- nicoburns 9y ago
  Is the opiate crisis really tied to drug prohibition? I'm sympathetic to the idea of reducig restrictions on dru use, but drugs are prohibited all over the world, and yet it is the US where opiate painkillers are overproscribed that has a big opiates afdiction problem...
- rectang 9y ago
  Oxycontin is legal. Many of those who became addicts would not have save for sinister machinations by Purdue Pharma. See this article on "Oxycontin's 12-hour problem": http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ I don't like prohibition and the recreational drug market is ripe for reform. There are better and worse ways to do that -- see Mark Kleiman's writings for strategies to construct legal marijuana markets where the incentives for companies to manufacture addicts are minimized. But the opiate crisis is not an example of supply inadequacy due to prohibition. The pharmaceutical industry has artificially increased demand.

louhike 9y ago

> The NIH spends 32[1] billion per year, whereas the global spending is ~160[2] billion. So around 20%. That's a lot, but not nearly half. I don't understand how comparing the spending of an American institution to worldwide spending is relevant. NIH isn't the only governmental institution doing research. But I may not understand something.

darawk 9y ago
I was just responding to his point.

reacweb 9y ago

I think your 160 billions include advertising and lobbying.

Retric 9y ago

Dollar value is a meaningless comparison. The cost of running a tiny drug study in the US is insane and only done because of how the FDA operates. It's really bad incentives all around. Consider, how much money drug companies spend advertising, now reolise there are basically one new drug per week or less if you exclude packing drifts A and drug B in one pill and calling it something else. Doctors can easily keep up with that rate of new drugs without a lot of effort.

refurb 9y ago

The NIH spends 32[1] billion per year That's true, but a fraction of that is spent on actual drug discovery. The NIH funds a lot of non-pharmaceutical research.