5 ms·

The state, not private interests, should spearhead production and research of pharmaceuticals, it should be part of basic developed-country infrastructure, like

by dusted 7y ago

The state, not private interests, should spearhead production and research of pharmaceuticals, it should be part of basic developed-country infrastructure, like transportation and education.

pojzon 7y ago
When you look closely at developed countries, you will see that they actually cut funds for healthcare and education. Healthy and educated ppl are too hard to manipulate..
- dusted 7y ago
  Interestingly, it's those same healthy, educated people who vote for those changes.
  - pojzon 7y ago
    Im not so sure about that, people who finished college or high school in my country are in minority. Im sure this is also the case in most modern countries. I also think that considering voting as a valid way to influence politicians in an age of corpo-corruption is pretty silly. Sure you can pick politicians but if there are like 4 major parties which all sellout to highest bidder, voting is pretty pointless because result is always the same. Creating new parties is out of question because you need vast amounts of funds to accomplish it. (https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Comparative_hires_0.png https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Compar...)
vonmoltke 7y ago
Why has no state stepped up to do this yet?
specialist 7y ago
The system I imagine: * drug development being funded by government; * thru misc stages (research, clinical trials, certification, mfg, etc); * at every stage third parties (public, private, or both) bidding on time boxed rights to license drug and carry drug thru remaining stages; * licensee paying royalties. Earlier involvement in the most promising drugs is incentivized by allowing third parties to license earlier, taking on more of the risk, getting a better deal. Orphaned drugs can still get some love by do gooders. In fact, government can pay (subsidize) third parties when there's no profit. I'm a total noob, and have zero idea if this worldview has any merit. Also, prohibit advertising and all forms of payola.
- jonlucc 7y ago
  We sort of have this system, but in reverse. You're suggesting to default to government, and we currently have a default-to-private system. The US government funds basic research, basic development, and clinical trials for projects it deems important enough that will not see adoption by corporations due to a lack of profit. One example of this is ebola vaccines. If I remember correctly, the incidence of ebola is incredibly (even internationally) low, but there is a public health justification for keeping a working vaccine available. The government, mostly through NIH, will sponsor the development of these kinds of projects. This also happens sometimes with orphan diseases. The government funds more research further up the chain until it's enticing to private companies.

by dusted 7y ago

The state, not private interests, should spearhead production and research of pharmaceuticals, it should be part of basic developed-country infrastructure, like transportation and education.

pojzon 7y ago

When you look closely at developed countries, you will see that they actually cut funds for healthcare and education. Healthy and educated ppl are too hard to manipulate..

dusted 7y ago
Interestingly, it's those same healthy, educated people who vote for those changes.
- pojzon 7y ago
  Im not so sure about that, people who finished college or high school in my country are in minority. Im sure this is also the case in most modern countries. I also think that considering voting as a valid way to influence politicians in an age of corpo-corruption is pretty silly. Sure you can pick politicians but if there are like 4 major parties which all sellout to highest bidder, voting is pretty pointless because result is always the same. Creating new parties is out of question because you need vast amounts of funds to accomplish it. (https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Comparative_hires_0.png https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Fig10_Compar...)

vonmoltke 7y ago

Why has no state stepped up to do this yet?

specialist 7y ago

The system I imagine: * drug development being funded by government; * thru misc stages (research, clinical trials, certification, mfg, etc); * at every stage third parties (public, private, or both) bidding on time boxed rights to license drug and carry drug thru remaining stages; * licensee paying royalties. Earlier involvement in the most promising drugs is incentivized by allowing third parties to license earlier, taking on more of the risk, getting a better deal. Orphaned drugs can still get some love by do gooders. In fact, government can pay (subsidize) third parties when there's no profit. I'm a total noob, and have zero idea if this worldview has any merit. Also, prohibit advertising and all forms of payola.

jonlucc 7y ago
We sort of have this system, but in reverse. You're suggesting to default to government, and we currently have a default-to-private system. The US government funds basic research, basic development, and clinical trials for projects it deems important enough that will not see adoption by corporations due to a lack of profit. One example of this is ebola vaccines. If I remember correctly, the incidence of ebola is incredibly (even internationally) low, but there is a public health justification for keeping a working vaccine available. The government, mostly through NIH, will sponsor the development of these kinds of projects. This also happens sometimes with orphan diseases. The government funds more research further up the chain until it's enticing to private companies.