3 ms·

Drug research seems more like an infrastructure thing more than a profit thing. Fund the research publicly. Academic competition is enough to ensure research is

Drug research seems more like an infrastructure thing more than a profit thing. Fund the research publicly. Academic competition is enough to ensure research is effective. Drug manufacture however seems more like a profit thing. Open up the results for companies to make generics. Profit motive will ensure efficient delivery.

nl 7y ago
Drugs are rarely (if ever?) developed by academics, and cost a huge amount. Low estimates for bringing a new drug to market are around $500M+: They found that companies took an average of 7.3 years to win FDA approval, at a median cost of $648 million. Only two drugs had research costs over $1 billion. Adding in the cost of capital at 7 percent increased the median research and development cost to $757 million—less than a third of the Tufts estimate.[1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-prices-high-cost-research-and-development/585253/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-pric...
- wbl 7y ago
  You also need to add the costs of the losers.
  - nl 7y ago
    Indeed, the next paragraph in that article discusses that.
- polymatter 7y ago
  I agree that the pharmaceutical industry spends a lot researching drugs. And so does the government eg [1]. In the situation of an imaginary future where patents are scrapped, pharmaceutical companies will be unlikely to continue to invest in the current fashion. I took GP to suggest that this would be an issue. I was trying to make the point that tax payers through something like NIH grants would be to take up the slack. Making the research available patent free so that generics can be manufactured. Obviously this wouldn't be a simple transition and incredibly unlikely. But its an interesting intellectual exercise to think about. [1](https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-development/ https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-develop...)

nl 7y ago

Drugs are rarely (if ever?) developed by academics, and cost a huge amount. Low estimates for bringing a new drug to market are around $500M+: They found that companies took an average of 7.3 years to win FDA approval, at a median cost of $648 million. Only two drugs had research costs over $1 billion. Adding in the cost of capital at 7 percent increased the median research and development cost to $757 million—less than a third of the Tufts estimate.[1] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-prices-high-cost-research-and-development/585253/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-pric...

wbl 7y ago
You also need to add the costs of the losers.
- nl 7y ago
  Indeed, the next paragraph in that article discusses that.
polymatter 7y ago
I agree that the pharmaceutical industry spends a lot researching drugs. And so does the government eg [1]. In the situation of an imaginary future where patents are scrapped, pharmaceutical companies will be unlikely to continue to invest in the current fashion. I took GP to suggest that this would be an issue. I was trying to make the point that tax payers through something like NIH grants would be to take up the slack. Making the research available patent free so that generics can be manufactured. Obviously this wouldn't be a simple transition and incredibly unlikely. But its an interesting intellectual exercise to think about. [1](https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-development/ https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-develop...)