4 ms·
Nope - that's not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Privately_(industry)_funded_biomedical_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_re
by cage433 8y ago
Nope - that's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Privately_(industry)_funded_biomedical_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research#Privately_(in...
Private R&D is around 60% - however a large part of that is making minor changes to existing molecules in order to obtain fresh patents.The bigger, riskier research is done by the NIH and other publicly funded bodies. See
https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/ https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/
Also - the quality of privately funded research is much worse, with non-reporting of negative results, data dredging and other dodgy activities being routine - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma
- refurb 8y agoYour source is all medical research. Not biotech specifically.
- neuromantik8086 8y agoIntriguing. I've often speculated about how private sector research compared with public research, especially in the context of the reproducibility crisis since I assumed that a lot of pharma companies knew that some research couldn't be replicated behind closed doors. I wonder what the quality of proprietary / unreleased studies is- do the links you provide take that into account?
- cage433 8y agoIt compares badly. Unfortunately too much private research is allowed to be kept secret - but what is known indicates it's of poorer quality - judged by the kind of metrics the Cochrane Institute use. Goldacre's book (he also has a blog) is well worth reading - describing _many_ ways in which drug companies can cheat.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]