4 ms·

I really wish this would be a higher priority for the current class of billionaire philanthropists: open source science. Medical research guided by the idea of

I really wish this would be a higher priority for the current class of billionaire philanthropists: open source science. Medical research guided by the idea of preventing disease rather than creating expensive life-long treatments, and prioritizing the diseases that cause the most amount of suffering rather than present the best opportunity for profit. And not just medicine, but just about any industry could benefit.

pope_meat 5y ago
Wall Street Smart Genius types have long held that curing disease is bad business, managing symptoms over the entire lifetime allows them to extract more capital out of the cattle. So, if you're looking to cure something you're going to struggle to find funding. Don't worry though, the economy will survive.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I wonder how the Hep C cures, COVID vaccines, shingles vaccine, HPV vaccines, and other cures got funding over the past 2 decades.
  - nceqs3 5y ago
    People love to bash big pharma, until they get cancer...
    - deeviant 5y ago
      Then they get a cancer treatment, that was likely partially funded by the government via grant or tax benefit or medicare graft but fully owned by the private company, they are charged tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars even though they have insurance, then mostly die anyways, because although cancer treatments are much better, they are still in the stone age. And their family than learns who actually funds cancer research: they do. It's funny because your statement was supposed to support the idea pharma only do good things but instead it exactly shows the failure mode of capitalism in medicine: when you get sick, its very often that you do not have the time or capacity to be a informed consumer and the entire premise of capitalism breaks down.
  - Maken 5y ago
    Public funding.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Grants and government funding, mostly. But then companies get patent monopolies on production because… reasons.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Yes, I do take issue with the government granting monopolies to private entities with taxpayer funded research. But not all of the funding for all the treatments I mentioned, which are clearly cures and not meant to bleed people until they die, came from government. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far towards cynicism.
    - refurb 5y ago
      That’s not true in the least. It’s mostly private investment.
      - deeviant 5y ago
        Please do share the numbers backing up your naked statement.
- failuser 5y ago
  Charging millions for a cure is a also a viable option. See Spinraza vs Zolgensma.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Wall Street Smart Genius types have long held that curing disease is bad business, managing symptoms over the entire lifetime allows them to extract more capital out of the cattle Nobody tell the multibillion dollar biotech industry… And in case it needs to be pointed out, no, cures are massively profitable. If someone has a cure for a presently untreatable disease you will get money, you will make money, everyone will make more money and everyone will be better off.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > everyone will make more money and everyone will be better off. Not the people who are currently making bank off of palliative care for that ailment. This absolutely creates perverse incentives that, while not ubiquitous, are hardly uncommon.
  - handmodel 5y ago
    I would argue the vaccine for Covid is essentially a cure. And the economics aren't that good. People got it once. They may or may not take a booster every couple years. And that is for a disease that everyone was impacted from. Meanwhile, a drug like viagra can be consumed several times a week for decades. I don't think its pharma execs are sitting their blocking cures, but it is true that they will looks at risk/reward when deciding. If most drugs only have a very small chance of being approved (lets say 2%) and costs billions of dollars to move through the process - of course those that are needed over and over are going to be funded through research more.
    - deeviant 5y ago
      > And the economics aren't that good. I'm going to need see some numbers on this statement. Because from where I'm sitting, the potential market is every human on planet earth, which is a pretty large amount of sales. Production costs of mRNA vaccines, as well, is quite low, with much of the cost spent so far spent on scaling.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bfrink 5y ago
You mean like this billionaire philanthropist? https://chanzuckerberg.com/science/programs-resources/open-science/ https://chanzuckerberg.com/science/programs-resources/open-s...
- dnautics 5y ago
  or this billionaire? https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/

pope_meat 5y ago

Wall Street Smart Genius types have long held that curing disease is bad business, managing symptoms over the entire lifetime allows them to extract more capital out of the cattle. So, if you're looking to cure something you're going to struggle to find funding. Don't worry though, the economy will survive.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
I wonder how the Hep C cures, COVID vaccines, shingles vaccine, HPV vaccines, and other cures got funding over the past 2 decades.
- nceqs3 5y ago
  People love to bash big pharma, until they get cancer...
  - deeviant 5y ago
    Then they get a cancer treatment, that was likely partially funded by the government via grant or tax benefit or medicare graft but fully owned by the private company, they are charged tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars even though they have insurance, then mostly die anyways, because although cancer treatments are much better, they are still in the stone age. And their family than learns who actually funds cancer research: they do. It's funny because your statement was supposed to support the idea pharma only do good things but instead it exactly shows the failure mode of capitalism in medicine: when you get sick, its very often that you do not have the time or capacity to be a informed consumer and the entire premise of capitalism breaks down.
- Maken 5y ago
  Public funding.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Grants and government funding, mostly. But then companies get patent monopolies on production because… reasons.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Yes, I do take issue with the government granting monopolies to private entities with taxpayer funded research. But not all of the funding for all the treatments I mentioned, which are clearly cures and not meant to bleed people until they die, came from government. Sometimes the pendulum swings too far towards cynicism.
  - refurb 5y ago
    That’s not true in the least. It’s mostly private investment.
    - deeviant 5y ago
      Please do share the numbers backing up your naked statement.
failuser 5y ago
Charging millions for a cure is a also a viable option. See Spinraza vs Zolgensma.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Wall Street Smart Genius types have long held that curing disease is bad business, managing symptoms over the entire lifetime allows them to extract more capital out of the cattle Nobody tell the multibillion dollar biotech industry… And in case it needs to be pointed out, no, cures are massively profitable. If someone has a cure for a presently untreatable disease you will get money, you will make money, everyone will make more money and everyone will be better off.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > everyone will make more money and everyone will be better off. Not the people who are currently making bank off of palliative care for that ailment. This absolutely creates perverse incentives that, while not ubiquitous, are hardly uncommon.
- handmodel 5y ago
  I would argue the vaccine for Covid is essentially a cure. And the economics aren't that good. People got it once. They may or may not take a booster every couple years. And that is for a disease that everyone was impacted from. Meanwhile, a drug like viagra can be consumed several times a week for decades. I don't think its pharma execs are sitting their blocking cures, but it is true that they will looks at risk/reward when deciding. If most drugs only have a very small chance of being approved (lets say 2%) and costs billions of dollars to move through the process - of course those that are needed over and over are going to be funded through research more.
  - deeviant 5y ago
    > And the economics aren't that good. I'm going to need see some numbers on this statement. Because from where I'm sitting, the potential market is every human on planet earth, which is a pretty large amount of sales. Production costs of mRNA vaccines, as well, is quite low, with much of the cost spent so far spent on scaling.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bfrink 5y ago

You mean like this billionaire philanthropist? https://chanzuckerberg.com/science/programs-resources/open-science/ https://chanzuckerberg.com/science/programs-resources/open-s...

dnautics 5y ago
or this billionaire? https://costplusdrugs.com/ https://costplusdrugs.com/