5 ms·

I think drugs are a big use case. They cost tons of money to develop, but once approved are incredibly easy for anyone to duplicate (Generics). Being able to

I think drugs are a big use case. They cost tons of money to develop, but once approved are incredibly easy for anyone to duplicate (Generics). Being able to recoup your investment is incentive. Of course they don’t work perfectly, as drugs off patent sometimes don’t see price reductions, but generally prices come down once off patent.

amelius 7y ago
Another idea is to let drug development be performed by universities and government institutions. This should be effective against extortionate pricing. Also, it promotes more open research.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Universities and government institutions do perform basic research (for drug development and lots of other stuff), but applied (product-focused) R&D would benefit from more tailored incentives. Less emphasis on really generic grant-making, and a lot more on ex-post-facto "prizes" for successful research efforts.
  - amelius 7y ago
    Well something needs to be done, because right now society pays big $ to universities for basic research, and allows drug companies to basically skim this off by adding a tiny bit of their own work and putting a patent on it.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      I don't think it's "a tiny bit" if we're accounting for it by money spent. You might think that the later steps in drug development (medical trials, especially) are wasteful but then that problem lies with the FDA's overly strict standards.
      - labawi 7y ago
        I wouldn't call them overly strict. They are just inappropriate, bad or badly enforced. There are too many cases of companies selling harmful food/drugs/medicine, even knowingly, with the FDA dragging their feet or just doing nothing. Disclaimer: Not from US.
      - amelius 7y ago
        I understand that medical trials cost time and money. But a lot of it is just routine work, and imho doesn't warrant a patent.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  A university doesn't want to spend $200 million to run the drug trials for a new drug. And I suspect university researchers don't want to spend their time managing such trials either. edit: The real problem is the lack of limits on marketing and advertising of drugs in the US. That's what's driving up the cost of drugs more than anything. Of course, without it drugs for rare conditions will never get made since there's no way to communicate their existence to patients. Ah well, nothing in life is perfect.
  - unishark 7y ago
    Industry labs compete for govt grants too. No reason why they can't keep developing the drugs. The USPTO has a budget of around $3.5B.
  - amelius 7y ago
    > A university doesn't want to spend $200 million to run the drug trials for a new drug. And I suspect university researchers don't want to spend their time managing such trials either. Yes, so outsource the trials to academic hospitals or specialized companies. Pay them properly and don't grant them a patent based on just doing the trials (they are a lot of work but they are not an inventive step).

amelius 7y ago

Another idea is to let drug development be performed by universities and government institutions. This should be effective against extortionate pricing. Also, it promotes more open research.

zozbot234 7y ago
Universities and government institutions do perform basic research (for drug development and lots of other stuff), but applied (product-focused) R&D would benefit from more tailored incentives. Less emphasis on really generic grant-making, and a lot more on ex-post-facto "prizes" for successful research efforts.
- amelius 7y ago
  Well something needs to be done, because right now society pays big $ to universities for basic research, and allows drug companies to basically skim this off by adding a tiny bit of their own work and putting a patent on it.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    I don't think it's "a tiny bit" if we're accounting for it by money spent. You might think that the later steps in drug development (medical trials, especially) are wasteful but then that problem lies with the FDA's overly strict standards.
    - labawi 7y ago
      I wouldn't call them overly strict. They are just inappropriate, bad or badly enforced. There are too many cases of companies selling harmful food/drugs/medicine, even knowingly, with the FDA dragging their feet or just doing nothing. Disclaimer: Not from US.
    - amelius 7y ago
      I understand that medical trials cost time and money. But a lot of it is just routine work, and imho doesn't warrant a patent.
marcinzm 7y ago
A university doesn't want to spend $200 million to run the drug trials for a new drug. And I suspect university researchers don't want to spend their time managing such trials either. edit: The real problem is the lack of limits on marketing and advertising of drugs in the US. That's what's driving up the cost of drugs more than anything. Of course, without it drugs for rare conditions will never get made since there's no way to communicate their existence to patients. Ah well, nothing in life is perfect.
- unishark 7y ago
  Industry labs compete for govt grants too. No reason why they can't keep developing the drugs. The USPTO has a budget of around $3.5B.
- amelius 7y ago
  > A university doesn't want to spend $200 million to run the drug trials for a new drug. And I suspect university researchers don't want to spend their time managing such trials either. Yes, so outsource the trials to academic hospitals or specialized companies. Pay them properly and don't grant them a patent based on just doing the trials (they are a lot of work but they are not an inventive step).