7 ms·

Profits are what drives innovation in pharmaceuticals.

sametmax 7y ago
Profit didn't get us vaccine against rabies or acetylsalicylic acid. Researchers did, and we have universities for that. So there are alternatives, and probably others we didn't think about.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  It was profit-seeking Bayer that found a way to make aspirin in an industrial process and put it in wide use. "In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines, and identified a new way to synthesize it.[2]:69–75 By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin
bandushrew 7y ago
That is a truism, right? Currently in the US we have private pharmaceutical companies driven by a profit motive, so profits are what drives their innovation. Setup a different system, and other motivations will drive their innovation, right? Unless your claim is that innovation can only EVER be driven by profit?
- fastball 7y ago
  I thing the argument is more along the lines of: 1. Observed value drives innovation. 2. Profit / profit-motive is one of the most straightforward / most efficient means we have to observe value.
  - Swenrekcah 7y ago
    You’re probably right and my counter argument would be: 1. Human [curiosity, desire, necessity] drives innovation. 2. Profit mandate suppresses most of those innovations by promoting the few money making ideas (however beneficial or harmful they may be).
    - fastball 7y ago
      I think the issue with that response is that [curiosity, desire, necessity] are all just specific versions of "observed value" which you are then applying to oneself. Sure, you'll have a lot of innovation if everyone is trying to satisfy their own curiosity, desire, or necessity. But you'll drive far more innovation if you have individuals who are also concerned with satisfying those needs for other people. And the easiest proxy for "someone else desires or needs this" is pricing mechanisms. Luckily, the internet / better communication methods are making it much easier to determine what is valuable to others without pricing mechanisms, but I would argue that profit motive is still the most effective method.
      - Swenrekcah 7y ago
        Yeah, I mostly agree. Profit motive is not a terrible method on average. I just get a bit worked up when I encounter any variant of “a corporations only duty is to create shareholder value”. :)
    - skookumchuck 7y ago
      Curiosity does not provide funding in the quantities needed. Nor does it allocate resources towards maximizing the benefit to the maximum number of people.
      - Swenrekcah 7y ago
        But neither does profit motive. Is facebook maximizing the benefit of their users? It’s more like maximizing benefits to the minimum amount of people at the expense of the maximum number of people.
        skookumchuck 7y ago
        > But neither does profit motive. Sure it does. Developing a cure for 100 people will generated far less profits than a cure for 100,000 people. It's why you see cars get better every year and constant attempts to appeal to the widest customer base possible. (That didn't happen with Soviet built cars, which tended to never improve.) As for advertising platforms, the customers are the advertisers.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  The US leads the world in pharmaceutical innovation. Hepatitis C cure, for example. Treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (Enbrel), for another. Socialist funded research is driven by politics, not maximizing the benefit to the maximum number of people. Note that a lot of university research is funded by corporations. I await your list of medical advances from the USSR.
saiya-jin 7y ago
Yes but it also skews the incentives. The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas. They want to keep people alive but paying for rest of their lives. That's how money shape commercial research
- reallydude 7y ago
  > The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas Unless you're the first to cure. The income, grants, and knowledge drain in your favor? People will continue to get diabetes and a treatment will cure it.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  > The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas 1. ABC develops an effective treatment for diabetes, but you have to take it for life. 2. DEF develops a cure for diabetes. Which one do you think is going to make more money? The only way ABC can make money is if a cure cannot be developed, or ABC somehow convinced the government to ban DEF's cure. Your theory reminds me of the 1970s when everyone was sure that 100 mpg carburetors existed but the oil companies bought up all the patents for it so they could sell more gas.

Profit didn't get us vaccine against rabies or acetylsalicylic acid. Researchers did, and we have universities for that. So there are alternatives, and probably others we didn't think about.

skookumchuck 7y ago
It was profit-seeking Bayer that found a way to make aspirin in an industrial process and put it in wide use. "In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines, and identified a new way to synthesize it.[2]:69–75 By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin

bandushrew 7y ago

That is a truism, right? Currently in the US we have private pharmaceutical companies driven by a profit motive, so profits are what drives their innovation. Setup a different system, and other motivations will drive their innovation, right? Unless your claim is that innovation can only EVER be driven by profit?

fastball 7y ago
I thing the argument is more along the lines of: 1. Observed value drives innovation. 2. Profit / profit-motive is one of the most straightforward / most efficient means we have to observe value.
- Swenrekcah 7y ago
  You’re probably right and my counter argument would be: 1. Human [curiosity, desire, necessity] drives innovation. 2. Profit mandate suppresses most of those innovations by promoting the few money making ideas (however beneficial or harmful they may be).
  - fastball 7y ago
    I think the issue with that response is that [curiosity, desire, necessity] are all just specific versions of "observed value" which you are then applying to oneself. Sure, you'll have a lot of innovation if everyone is trying to satisfy their own curiosity, desire, or necessity. But you'll drive far more innovation if you have individuals who are also concerned with satisfying those needs for other people. And the easiest proxy for "someone else desires or needs this" is pricing mechanisms. Luckily, the internet / better communication methods are making it much easier to determine what is valuable to others without pricing mechanisms, but I would argue that profit motive is still the most effective method.
    - Swenrekcah 7y ago
      Yeah, I mostly agree. Profit motive is not a terrible method on average. I just get a bit worked up when I encounter any variant of “a corporations only duty is to create shareholder value”. :)
  - skookumchuck 7y ago
    Curiosity does not provide funding in the quantities needed. Nor does it allocate resources towards maximizing the benefit to the maximum number of people.
    - Swenrekcah 7y ago
      But neither does profit motive. Is facebook maximizing the benefit of their users? It’s more like maximizing benefits to the minimum amount of people at the expense of the maximum number of people.
      - skookumchuck 7y ago
        > But neither does profit motive. Sure it does. Developing a cure for 100 people will generated far less profits than a cure for 100,000 people. It's why you see cars get better every year and constant attempts to appeal to the widest customer base possible. (That didn't happen with Soviet built cars, which tended to never improve.) As for advertising platforms, the customers are the advertisers.
skookumchuck 7y ago
The US leads the world in pharmaceutical innovation. Hepatitis C cure, for example. Treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (Enbrel), for another. Socialist funded research is driven by politics, not maximizing the benefit to the maximum number of people. Note that a lot of university research is funded by corporations. I await your list of medical advances from the USSR.

saiya-jin 7y ago

Yes but it also skews the incentives. The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas. They want to keep people alive but paying for rest of their lives. That's how money shape commercial research

reallydude 7y ago
> The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas Unless you're the first to cure. The income, grants, and knowledge drain in your favor? People will continue to get diabetes and a treatment will cure it.
skookumchuck 7y ago
> The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas 1. ABC develops an effective treatment for diabetes, but you have to take it for life. 2. DEF develops a cure for diabetes. Which one do you think is going to make more money? The only way ABC can make money is if a cure cannot be developed, or ABC somehow convinced the government to ban DEF's cure. Your theory reminds me of the 1970s when everyone was sure that 100 mpg carburetors existed but the oil companies bought up all the patents for it so they could sell more gas.