4 ms·
>for better or worse, the US also does cutting edge health science that other countries dont get close to. You're conflating two things. A large portion of "cu
by omegaworks 9y ago
>for better or worse, the US also does cutting edge health science that other countries dont get close to.
You're conflating two things. A large portion of "cutting edge health science" research is funded publicly. The private funding tends to focus on reformulating existing drugs and other less-risky bets. The real game changers come out of moon-shots made possible by government funding.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/13/376801357/u-s-funding-of-health-research-stalls-as-other-nations-rev-up https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/13/3768013...
- conanbatt 9y agoI think this conflates spending with results. I dont know enough to confirm or refute, but government science in general is pretty inefficient: yes it does things that the private sector wouldnt do that are valuable, but it does a lot of other things poorly and expensively. Not to mention that the very state makes researching drugs onerously expensive. It can take a billion dollars to get FDA approval, how is that reasonable.
- tstrimple 9y ago> It can take a billion dollars to get FDA approval, how is that reasonable. It is unreasonable to have to prove drugs are safe before shipping them out to potentially millions of people? We must have very different definitions of reasonable.