3 ms·

Developing new drugs takes over a decade and costs billions. European countries are free loading of US drug research. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-othe

by enaaem 6y ago

Developing new drugs takes over a decade and costs billions. European countries are free loading of US drug research. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-other-countries-freeload-on-u-s-drug-research-1487722580 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/how-other-countries-freeloa...

Taek 6y ago
Do we have good data on what happens if you change the IP laws around drugs to reduce the moat that the developers get? A common claim by big-pharma defenders is that if you take away the gouging aspect, drug development will stop. Is there some way we can test this experimentally on a subset of the drug market?
- epistasis 6y ago
  One way to do that would be to publicly fund research for clinical trials in drugs that do not have that moat. It is totally possible to develop drugs without that moat, it just requires getting the money from somewhere. I have no idea which method would produce better outcomes. Back when there was more science leadership at large pharma, I thought they would be more likely to take crazy bets that work out, that wouldn't necessarily happen at an NIH grant review panel. But last I checked most upper management in pharma are people that tout a PhD on their name, but it's for a field outside of a relevant science.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > It is totally possible to develop drugs without that moat, it just requires getting the money from somewhere. US taxpayers seem to be able to find hundreds billions for R&D of fighter jets and aircraft carriers. Perhaps this is not as necessary as developing medicine. Or not invading and occupying random countries.
    - enaaem 6y ago
      The military is used to protect "The American Order". There are some non-trivial benefits of the American Order: 1. Secure maritime trade for all. Protection against piracy and gone are the days when countries would just steal each other's cargo. 2. Global trading currency that is backed by the biggest economy in the world. 3. Establishment of a global trade network. Industrialised countries have access to more natural resources than ever without needing colonies. Remember how the world was before the American Order. Colonies and hostility all over the world. Europe was in two world wars and would have probably been in another one with the Sovjets. Generally speaking, people trust the American rule of law and trust that the US will help her allies. This only made relevant by having an ultra beefy military. It's hard to put a price on these things, and which portion the US tax payers have to pay. Note that the current administration wants to cut back on these costs. European countries are benefitting a lot from the American Order, and should perhaps shoulder more of the costs.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Maintaining that superiority does not require trillion dollar useless fighter jet boondoggles, or invading a country for no country wide gain, or being stuck occupying said country for decades due to a fabricated problem, or the use of mercenaries (private military contractors) who have connections to politicians. There is zero valid reason the world’s mightiest military should need mercenaries. A far better plan to remain as the world leader would be to court the world’s top minds and lure them into living in the US permanently. And all it would have required is handing out green cards at graduation. But that is another topic.
        jmeister 6y ago
        “You can’t handle the truth!” - Col. Jessup. Look at China’s aggression in the past couple of months, especially with India. It would never have happened 10 or 20 years back with a strong America. Yes, the US does serve as the world’s policeman.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
dominotw 6y ago
I don't know how prevalent this is but i remember watching AOC questioning gilead execs on "stealing" HIV patent for the drug and selling drug back to public for exorbitant prices. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/business/gilead-truvada-hiv-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/business/gilead-truvada-h... is corruption only explanation of how this happened?
phaemon 6y ago
(I'm using 2015 figures because they were the latest available the last time I challenged this bullshit) Nope, drugs sales in the EU alone are enough to cover pharmaceutical R&D costs worldwide. What they aren't enough to cover is Marketing costs, but that's OK since most EU countries don't allow direct marketing of drugs. That's what the US covers. Not quite so noble sounding that you're covering the cost of advertising though, is it? Pharmaceutical R&D spending in 2015: USA $47B, Europe: $33B. Total drug sales Europe 2015: $190B
- phobar 6y ago
  Good points but you should differentiate between generics and novel therapies that make up for the 190B USD in EU sales.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Thanks for these numbers!

by enaaem 6y ago

Taek 6y ago

Do we have good data on what happens if you change the IP laws around drugs to reduce the moat that the developers get? A common claim by big-pharma defenders is that if you take away the gouging aspect, drug development will stop. Is there some way we can test this experimentally on a subset of the drug market?

epistasis 6y ago
One way to do that would be to publicly fund research for clinical trials in drugs that do not have that moat. It is totally possible to develop drugs without that moat, it just requires getting the money from somewhere. I have no idea which method would produce better outcomes. Back when there was more science leadership at large pharma, I thought they would be more likely to take crazy bets that work out, that wouldn't necessarily happen at an NIH grant review panel. But last I checked most upper management in pharma are people that tout a PhD on their name, but it's for a field outside of a relevant science.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > It is totally possible to develop drugs without that moat, it just requires getting the money from somewhere. US taxpayers seem to be able to find hundreds billions for R&D of fighter jets and aircraft carriers. Perhaps this is not as necessary as developing medicine. Or not invading and occupying random countries.
  - enaaem 6y ago
    The military is used to protect "The American Order". There are some non-trivial benefits of the American Order: 1. Secure maritime trade for all. Protection against piracy and gone are the days when countries would just steal each other's cargo. 2. Global trading currency that is backed by the biggest economy in the world. 3. Establishment of a global trade network. Industrialised countries have access to more natural resources than ever without needing colonies. Remember how the world was before the American Order. Colonies and hostility all over the world. Europe was in two world wars and would have probably been in another one with the Sovjets. Generally speaking, people trust the American rule of law and trust that the US will help her allies. This only made relevant by having an ultra beefy military. It's hard to put a price on these things, and which portion the US tax payers have to pay. Note that the current administration wants to cut back on these costs. European countries are benefitting a lot from the American Order, and should perhaps shoulder more of the costs.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Maintaining that superiority does not require trillion dollar useless fighter jet boondoggles, or invading a country for no country wide gain, or being stuck occupying said country for decades due to a fabricated problem, or the use of mercenaries (private military contractors) who have connections to politicians. There is zero valid reason the world’s mightiest military should need mercenaries. A far better plan to remain as the world leader would be to court the world’s top minds and lure them into living in the US permanently. And all it would have required is handing out green cards at graduation. But that is another topic.
      - jmeister 6y ago
        “You can’t handle the truth!” - Col. Jessup. Look at China’s aggression in the past couple of months, especially with India. It would never have happened 10 or 20 years back with a strong America. Yes, the US does serve as the world’s policeman.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago

dominotw 6y ago

I don't know how prevalent this is but i remember watching AOC questioning gilead execs on "stealing" HIV patent for the drug and selling drug back to public for exorbitant prices. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/business/gilead-truvada-hiv-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/business/gilead-truvada-h... is corruption only explanation of how this happened?

phaemon 6y ago

(I'm using 2015 figures because they were the latest available the last time I challenged this bullshit) Nope, drugs sales in the EU alone are enough to cover pharmaceutical R&D costs worldwide. What they aren't enough to cover is Marketing costs, but that's OK since most EU countries don't allow direct marketing of drugs. That's what the US covers. Not quite so noble sounding that you're covering the cost of advertising though, is it? Pharmaceutical R&D spending in 2015: USA $47B, Europe: $33B. Total drug sales Europe 2015: $190B

phobar 6y ago
Good points but you should differentiate between generics and novel therapies that make up for the 190B USD in EU sales.
hef19898 6y ago
Thanks for these numbers!