3 ms·

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

by 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
        The idea that the US could simply threaten the world’s factory with 4x the population of the US is ludicrous to me. They are top down, focused, and the only problem they had was lack of education, which is solved by time. The only way for the US to have been able to threaten China without using force would have been to sow political discord and break it up into smaller countries. The US has 330M people, mostly getting older. China has 1.4B. Both have nukes so it’s not in anyone’s interest to engage militarily, and both have sufficient resources to not have to depend on someone else. And both need each other economically.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        The US's strength has never solely been about it's individual strength. Together with the EU, Japan, Australia, SE Asian countries in general, it really evens up the numbers game. Plus the US has dominance in its hemisphere. China has India right next door.

by Taek 6y ago

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
        The idea that the US could simply threaten the world’s factory with 4x the population of the US is ludicrous to me. They are top down, focused, and the only problem they had was lack of education, which is solved by time. The only way for the US to have been able to threaten China without using force would have been to sow political discord and break it up into smaller countries. The US has 330M people, mostly getting older. China has 1.4B. Both have nukes so it’s not in anyone’s interest to engage militarily, and both have sufficient resources to not have to depend on someone else. And both need each other economically.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        The US's strength has never solely been about it's individual strength. Together with the EU, Japan, Australia, SE Asian countries in general, it really evens up the numbers game. Plus the US has dominance in its hemisphere. China has India right next door.