3 ms·

Remdesivir was developed with public funds. Shouldn't the fact that the public shouldered the risk of development be factored into any of this? https://www.ua

• bmmayer1 6y ago
  That's a good point.
• tryptophan 6y ago
  Technically true, but completely misrepresents the issue. Discovering (100s of)compounds in a lab (which is what the public funds pay for) is the easy and much cheaper part. Testing it in humans and modifying it for that purpose is hard, expensive, and time consuming. Pretending like these drug companies do nothing and just take all the benefit from public research is incorrect.
  • x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    I never said they did nothing. I'm pointing out that they aren't the John Galt story that people are lead to believe when people mention "recouping cost". And like any other shareholder, shouldn't we see something of a benefit for putting up our own capital?
• rayiner 6y ago
  Here on HN, we should easily be able to see through this trope. The government made a $37.5 million grant to study a range of drugs. How much equity should the government get for what basically amounts to seed funding for the $1 billion cost of bringing a drug to market? (Account for dilution and the fact that the “investor” here doesn’t put more money into subsequent funding rounds.)