6 ms·

Pharmaceutical R&D companies have become just development companies because they stop looking for new drugs and are simply repackaging and reformulating existin

Pharmaceutical R&D companies have become just development companies because they stop looking for new drugs and are simply repackaging and reformulating existing drugs (e.g. Claritin/Clarinex). They're doing this because it costs too much to do research and development gives them quicker return on investment.

maxharris 16y ago
They'll do their own research when the government stops competing with them in that arena. Until then, why duplicate it when they (and everyone else) has been forced to pay for it anyway? (I'm all for research, but I'm against forcing people to pay for it. The best scientific research is intricately tied into industry anyway. For example, where would biochemistry be without cyclotrons, radiolabeling, glassware and chemical reagents? All of that was possible because of private industrial work. Ever heard of Peter Mitchell?) Second, pharmas aren't free to develop whatever they think would be profitable. New drugs cost around a billion dollars to develop because of the FDA, which is ridiculous. There are many rare illnesses for which affected people don't want the "safety" the FDA imposes. As long as billion dollar development costs are imposed on every drug, there is no chance that any progress can be made for these people. So it's not the pharmas, it's the regulation.
- wlievens 16y ago
  The other side of that argument is of course that most patients don't want "unsafe" drugs, so that regulation has a purpose. Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?
  - maxharris 16y ago
    Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs? Of course there is. Regulations can be changed, freeing drug companies to research and develop these drugs. In fact, I'm sure that this change - this partial deregulation compromise - is going to happen, someday. But on what principle should we stop there? Where do you draw the line, and why? If the regulations say "freedom only for drug developers that treat diseases that affect 15,000 people with five years," on what principle do you cut freedom short for the 15,001th patient, or the one who is expected to live five years and a day?
    - jbooth 16y ago
      You draw the line where it works best, because it works best. The goal isn't some nebulous definition of "freedom", where "freedom" is defined as "adherence to conservative orthodoxy regardless of the particulars". The goal is something that works well.
      - maxharris 16y ago
        I disagree. Who decides "what works best", and how? Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves. Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason.
        jbooth 16y ago
        In this conversation, "works better" was defined 2 short comments ago as "easing the regulatory burden for exceptional cases [and in general if possible] while still maintaining safety standards for mundane drugs". Paraphrased. But you jumped way past "working better" into some unrelated and 100% ideologically-driven conception of "freedom". What are we talking about here, my freedom to get poisoned by cough syrup because I didn't perform my own scientific studies on the matter with a large sample population? How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck?
        maxharris 16y ago
        How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck? It doesn't. Yaron Brook just addressed this in a debate held in New York last week: "The biggest victims of government intervention in the economy, the biggest victims of socialism (as someone who came from a socialist country, where government intervened a lot more than here) are the ambitious poor - the people who could rise up under freedom. The people who want to work, who want to make something of their lives, who want to succeed, who want to prosper. They are the real victims. They are the ones we should shed tears for when we regulate, when we control, when we put them through public education, when we put them through the whole social mechanism, when we use welfare to institutionalize them into poverty and take away their sense of personal responsibility and personal morality that is so crucial for their development as successful, happy, prosperous human beings. If anything Objectivism should rally around, it's those people. You know, I wasn't rich, I was an ambitious poor guy. I came to this country with nothing. Those are the people who are the real victims of state intervention, and the real benefactors of freedom and capitalism." This quotes is from the last five minutes of audio: http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_WhatIsItsProperRole_ http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_Wh...

maxharris 16y ago

They'll do their own research when the government stops competing with them in that arena. Until then, why duplicate it when they (and everyone else) has been forced to pay for it anyway? (I'm all for research, but I'm against forcing people to pay for it. The best scientific research is intricately tied into industry anyway. For example, where would biochemistry be without cyclotrons, radiolabeling, glassware and chemical reagents? All of that was possible because of private industrial work. Ever heard of Peter Mitchell?) Second, pharmas aren't free to develop whatever they think would be profitable. New drugs cost around a billion dollars to develop because of the FDA, which is ridiculous. There are many rare illnesses for which affected people don't want the "safety" the FDA imposes. As long as billion dollar development costs are imposed on every drug, there is no chance that any progress can be made for these people. So it's not the pharmas, it's the regulation.

wlievens 16y ago
The other side of that argument is of course that most patients don't want "unsafe" drugs, so that regulation has a purpose. Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs?
- maxharris 16y ago
  Is there any way to get a best of both worlds in this scenario? Quicker to-market times for drugs for rare and dangerous diseases, and the safe route for the more common drugs? Of course there is. Regulations can be changed, freeing drug companies to research and develop these drugs. In fact, I'm sure that this change - this partial deregulation compromise - is going to happen, someday. But on what principle should we stop there? Where do you draw the line, and why? If the regulations say "freedom only for drug developers that treat diseases that affect 15,000 people with five years," on what principle do you cut freedom short for the 15,001th patient, or the one who is expected to live five years and a day?
  - jbooth 16y ago
    You draw the line where it works best, because it works best. The goal isn't some nebulous definition of "freedom", where "freedom" is defined as "adherence to conservative orthodoxy regardless of the particulars". The goal is something that works well.
    - maxharris 16y ago
      I disagree. Who decides "what works best", and how? Edit: I say that each of us has to do that for ourselves. Also, I'm not a conservative. I'm anti-religion, pro-selfishness, pro-gay, anti-environmentalism, pro-abortion, pro-capitalism. I'm a radical for reason.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        In this conversation, "works better" was defined 2 short comments ago as "easing the regulatory burden for exceptional cases [and in general if possible] while still maintaining safety standards for mundane drugs". Paraphrased. But you jumped way past "working better" into some unrelated and 100% ideologically-driven conception of "freedom". What are we talking about here, my freedom to get poisoned by cough syrup because I didn't perform my own scientific studies on the matter with a large sample population? How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck?
        maxharris 16y ago
        How come freedom only ever applies to the already-rich cutting corners for an extra buck? It doesn't. Yaron Brook just addressed this in a debate held in New York last week: "The biggest victims of government intervention in the economy, the biggest victims of socialism (as someone who came from a socialist country, where government intervened a lot more than here) are the ambitious poor - the people who could rise up under freedom. The people who want to work, who want to make something of their lives, who want to succeed, who want to prosper. They are the real victims. They are the ones we should shed tears for when we regulate, when we control, when we put them through public education, when we put them through the whole social mechanism, when we use welfare to institutionalize them into poverty and take away their sense of personal responsibility and personal morality that is so crucial for their development as successful, happy, prosperous human beings. If anything Objectivism should rally around, it's those people. You know, I wasn't rich, I was an ambitious poor guy. I came to this country with nothing. Those are the people who are the real victims of state intervention, and the real benefactors of freedom and capitalism." This quotes is from the last five minutes of audio: http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_WhatIsItsProperRole_ http://www.archive.org/details/FirstPrinciples-Government_Wh...