3 ms·

I would be interested to hear more about the development of the drug, (How much of the total research costs were born by the government? Did the government star

I would be interested to hear more about the development of the drug, (How much of the total research costs were born by the government? Did the government start the research, or merely contribute funding to an extant program?) and what specifically Ridgeback & Merck did "to develop the drug as a Covid-19 treatment". (Was this drug an obvious candidate for a COVID treatment, or are we only getting it because of Ridgeback?) If the article's depiction of the situation (i.e. if the government really paid for the bulk of research, and these companies just swooped in to claim the rewards without much of a contribution) is accurate, then it seems like it would make sense to limit them to some reasonable markup. The root issue here, as far as I can tell, is that government institutions license its IP without protecting the public interest in what is, effectively, public property.

alistairSH 5y ago
Based only on the timing, it appears the initial drug development (which pre-dates COVID - drug was developed to treat other infections) was funded by the government. Ridgeback licensed the drug, then ran COVID trials. Merck then licensed it and plans to market and produce it. The COVID trials had costs. Marketing had/has costs. But do those costs come anywhere near 40x the production cost? That I don't know, but I doubt it. As you note, the government should retain some ownership in drugs it funds. Or, the contract language should ensure the drug is sold for a reasonable cost. That would prevent this from happening.