4 ms·

Up until the 1950's pharmaceutical development was entirely a government enterprise: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.slu.edu/law/academics/journals/hea

by owowow 6y ago

Up until the 1950's pharmaceutical development was entirely a government enterprise: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.slu.edu/law/academics/journals/health-law-policy/pdfs/issues/v6-i1/field_article.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi36YuMyKXrAhXROn0KHeYzBWsQFjAJegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1VbCUbgtx-MjOu9BkuGM2_ https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.slu.edu/law/academi...

refurb 6y ago
What? No. People seem to get confused on what actually goes into bringing a new drug to market. Yes, a significant amount of basic research is done through government funding. But discovering a new drug target is about 20% of the way to a new drug. You still need someone to develop new candidates, screen them, identify promising compounds, bring it through years of clinical trials, develop a manufacturing process, get FDA approval and then sell it. A good rule of thumb is that the cost of R&D is typically 1/3 research and 2/3 development. Development is almost always entirely private. And a significant amount of research is too.
- ori_b 6y ago
  When people talk about the death of corporate research labs, they're largely talking about the death of fundamental research -- places like PARC, Bell Labs, etc. Corporate research to take fundamental discoveries and find better ways of productizing it is alive and well.
  - refurb 6y ago
    At least from the pharmaceutical perspective, there has definitely been a shift away from basic research. Why? Well, in the past, it was drug companies that had the money to actually fund it. It wasn't a big deal to spend $1M on the latest lab equipment. We had university researchers asking for time on our equipment. From talking to some of the old-timers, universities started to get better and better funding (NIH grants, royalties, etc) and eventually could buy the equipment they needed themselves, no need to rely on drug companies. So it might be more accurate to say that basic research funding has grown and most of that growth happened on the university side. Pharma companies have either held steady or decreased their spend on basic research (it really depends on the company).
    - obmelvin 6y ago
      I know these comments are semi-discouraged, but I honestly found your response to be so insightful that I wanted to thank you for sharing your perspective. At least, it fits with what I've seen (GF in PhD program, stepdad has an extremely successful lab at a non-profit institute doing basic science research in immunology), but not seen stated explicitly.
- godelski 6y ago
  Basic research is one of the riskiest aspects though. It is much easier to justify internal research on a product where basic research shows that it works and suggests it will scale. MUCH harder when it is a moonshot. You'll notice there's a difference in capital between companies that do the former vs the latter.
  - refurb 6y ago
    True. Basic research can takes years to yield anything useful. However, basic research is also relatively low cost compared to the cost of say, running a clinical trial. A single phase 3 clinical trial can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. You can fund a lot of basic research for that kind of money. When I was in grad school, my PI got grants of ~$2M a year and that supported a lab of ~10 researchers.
    - godelski 6y ago
      > When I was in grad school, my PI got grants of ~$2M a year and that supported a lab of ~10 researchers. There's a big pay difference between grad students, industry researchers, and government researchers, with grad students being the lowest on the totem pole. Which should make sense because they are researchers in training. There's many different types of research too.
      - refurb 6y ago
        That's true, but even if you quadrupled the costs to account for market rate salaries, you're still two orders of magnitude smaller than typical development costs.
        godelski 6y ago
        I'm not saying Phase III is really expensive, it is. But you're also ignoring the failure rates of Phase I and Phase II. If you only count the success rate of Phase I's that make it to Phase III and beyond then you're ignoring >80% of the basic research cost.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Pre-1950 may have been different. The NYS Department of Health Lab developed antitoxins for diseases like anthrax and antifungals (ie NYstatin) in that era.
  - refurb 6y ago
    My comment was more the use of entirely in the OP's statement. There was a lot of drug research done before the 1950's and there still is today, but before 1950 it certainly wasn't only the government doing it.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      Great point, I missed that nuance! Certainly with the costs associated with drug approvals being exponentially higher today, only Federal government could possibly be in the drug business.
MarxOk 6y ago
Big Pharma is a classic example of what happens with private enterprise becomes so powerful that "regulatory capture" occurs. They can charge what they like, and undertake other dirty marketing practices, because nobody can compete.

by owowow 6y ago

refurb 6y ago

What? No. People seem to get confused on what actually goes into bringing a new drug to market. Yes, a significant amount of basic research is done through government funding. But discovering a new drug target is about 20% of the way to a new drug. You still need someone to develop new candidates, screen them, identify promising compounds, bring it through years of clinical trials, develop a manufacturing process, get FDA approval and then sell it. A good rule of thumb is that the cost of R&D is typically 1/3 research and 2/3 development. Development is almost always entirely private. And a significant amount of research is too.

ori_b 6y ago
When people talk about the death of corporate research labs, they're largely talking about the death of fundamental research -- places like PARC, Bell Labs, etc. Corporate research to take fundamental discoveries and find better ways of productizing it is alive and well.
- refurb 6y ago
  At least from the pharmaceutical perspective, there has definitely been a shift away from basic research. Why? Well, in the past, it was drug companies that had the money to actually fund it. It wasn't a big deal to spend $1M on the latest lab equipment. We had university researchers asking for time on our equipment. From talking to some of the old-timers, universities started to get better and better funding (NIH grants, royalties, etc) and eventually could buy the equipment they needed themselves, no need to rely on drug companies. So it might be more accurate to say that basic research funding has grown and most of that growth happened on the university side. Pharma companies have either held steady or decreased their spend on basic research (it really depends on the company).
  - obmelvin 6y ago
    I know these comments are semi-discouraged, but I honestly found your response to be so insightful that I wanted to thank you for sharing your perspective. At least, it fits with what I've seen (GF in PhD program, stepdad has an extremely successful lab at a non-profit institute doing basic science research in immunology), but not seen stated explicitly.
godelski 6y ago
Basic research is one of the riskiest aspects though. It is much easier to justify internal research on a product where basic research shows that it works and suggests it will scale. MUCH harder when it is a moonshot. You'll notice there's a difference in capital between companies that do the former vs the latter.
- refurb 6y ago
  True. Basic research can takes years to yield anything useful. However, basic research is also relatively low cost compared to the cost of say, running a clinical trial. A single phase 3 clinical trial can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. You can fund a lot of basic research for that kind of money. When I was in grad school, my PI got grants of ~$2M a year and that supported a lab of ~10 researchers.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > When I was in grad school, my PI got grants of ~$2M a year and that supported a lab of ~10 researchers. There's a big pay difference between grad students, industry researchers, and government researchers, with grad students being the lowest on the totem pole. Which should make sense because they are researchers in training. There's many different types of research too.
    - refurb 6y ago
      That's true, but even if you quadrupled the costs to account for market rate salaries, you're still two orders of magnitude smaller than typical development costs.
      - godelski 6y ago
        I'm not saying Phase III is really expensive, it is. But you're also ignoring the failure rates of Phase I and Phase II. If you only count the success rate of Phase I's that make it to Phase III and beyond then you're ignoring >80% of the basic research cost.
Spooky23 6y ago
Pre-1950 may have been different. The NYS Department of Health Lab developed antitoxins for diseases like anthrax and antifungals (ie NYstatin) in that era.
- refurb 6y ago
  My comment was more the use of entirely in the OP's statement. There was a lot of drug research done before the 1950's and there still is today, but before 1950 it certainly wasn't only the government doing it.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Great point, I missed that nuance! Certainly with the costs associated with drug approvals being exponentially higher today, only Federal government could possibly be in the drug business.

MarxOk 6y ago

Big Pharma is a classic example of what happens with private enterprise becomes so powerful that "regulatory capture" occurs. They can charge what they like, and undertake other dirty marketing practices, because nobody can compete.