6 ms·

Unfortunately, it's expensive. The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion, and this doesn't include the cost of marketing (though it doe

Unfortunately, it's expensive. The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion, and this doesn't include the cost of marketing (though it does include the cost of drugs that fail the approval process)(see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762311 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762311). At these numbers, it's hard to raise the money unless you think the drug is gonna be profitable.

noir_lord 5y ago
On the one hand, yep absolutely. However on the other hand I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) which cost $4 billon to build. A billion is a lot of money but not for governments, it's kinda tragic when you look at what we spend on some things that we haven't figured out a more sensible way of allocating resources.
- DanHulton 5y ago
  The problem, as it ever seems to be, is capitalism.
  - todd8 5y ago
    What alternative to capitalism are you implying would be better? If you have a viable alternative, just do it yourself. (I’m not saying all by yourself, team up with others to make it happen.) I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely interested in what you believe would get us from here to a Startrek-like economic system.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      Startrek is amazingly devoid of status conflicts. Everybody takes for granted the the BigCaptain is BigCaptain for life and that the SeniorOfficers are SeniorOfficers for life. The crew is content to work routine boring jobs for years on end with exceedingly rare promotions (where to promote to other than a new ship?). Even in a society of small scale material affluence, there are scarce coveted goods, for example, being the captain of a starship.
      - justinator 5y ago
        That borrows heavily from the idea of just how navies works though, yeah? In a submarine, you don't wanna do a stupid. I bet you could take the script for the Hunt for Red October and make it a TNG three parter and barely anyone would notice. Outside of the fancy starships, it does seem like it's more business as usual when it comes to the failings of people and their better wants and desires. How many plots lines dealt with trade disputes or colonies that need to do something (like leave) but don't wanna, etc.
    - 93po 5y ago
      It would require world powers to stop squishing any threats to capitalism for made up reasons
      - ludamad 5y ago
        Which I see as a problem, as world powers are very distinct, seemingly have a hard time when they don't ingrain capitalism to a large degree (China) and one is definitely required to have a robust alternative to capitalism
        93po 5y ago
        I don't think we've had a singular large-scale example of non-capitalism that wasn't experiencing tremendous external pressure to fail. I really wish people would stop pretending like it's impossible when it's been sabotaged at every attempt.
    - justinator 5y ago
      > I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely interested in what you believe would get us from here to a Startrek-like economic system. There's gotta be fanfiction where everyone actual is a cyborg, it's only Data that's cognizant of that fact, which oddly makes him more human that everyone else. So that's my answer: get rid of the humans. I would also say, "let's try Anarchism" but starships are anything but lacking hierarchy. They're little benevolent fascist city-states. But Fascism isn't popular with everyone it seems.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  And we’re lucky if those billion dollar military projects even work. More often than not you get a F-35; expensive and underperforming.
vidoc 5y ago
> The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion This is one of the most well know, tired, scammy talking point big-pharma has used for decades. Hint: in the very document you linked, htere is a 'costing method' section, you might want to read it a bit more carefully and you will discover the big scam: opportunity cost, not cost.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Hmmm.... so you're arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market? Then why aren't you (or, at least, someone) out there developing new drugs on the cheap to undercut "Big Pharma"? Your opportunity awaits, dude.
  - vidoc 5y ago
    > Hmmm.... so you're arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market? You just made a straw-man argument. I posted a 2 lines comment highlighting the fact that cost and opportunity cost are two very different things, to the point that the claim that taking a drug to market costing literally billions of dollars to poor drug companies can be taken with a grain of salt. You main take-away was that I am "arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market".
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      No, I didn't make any kind of "straw man argument". In your original post, you referred to the claim that it costs billions of dollars as a "scam", which is exactly the same thing as calling it false (indeed, it's not only calling it false, it's calling it intentionally and perhaps criminally false). Now you're trying to walk back that claim by watering it down to "take it with a grain of salt" rather than calling it a "scam", but you did, in fact, deny that it costs billions. If it doesn't, in fact, cost billions, why isn't someone undercutting them?
      - 5y ago

noir_lord 5y ago

On the one hand, yep absolutely. However on the other hand I look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08) which cost $4 billon to build. A billion is a lot of money but not for governments, it's kinda tragic when you look at what we spend on some things that we haven't figured out a more sensible way of allocating resources.

DanHulton 5y ago
The problem, as it ever seems to be, is capitalism.
- todd8 5y ago
  What alternative to capitalism are you implying would be better? If you have a viable alternative, just do it yourself. (I’m not saying all by yourself, team up with others to make it happen.) I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely interested in what you believe would get us from here to a Startrek-like economic system.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    Startrek is amazingly devoid of status conflicts. Everybody takes for granted the the BigCaptain is BigCaptain for life and that the SeniorOfficers are SeniorOfficers for life. The crew is content to work routine boring jobs for years on end with exceedingly rare promotions (where to promote to other than a new ship?). Even in a society of small scale material affluence, there are scarce coveted goods, for example, being the captain of a starship.
    - justinator 5y ago
      That borrows heavily from the idea of just how navies works though, yeah? In a submarine, you don't wanna do a stupid. I bet you could take the script for the Hunt for Red October and make it a TNG three parter and barely anyone would notice. Outside of the fancy starships, it does seem like it's more business as usual when it comes to the failings of people and their better wants and desires. How many plots lines dealt with trade disputes or colonies that need to do something (like leave) but don't wanna, etc.
  - 93po 5y ago
    It would require world powers to stop squishing any threats to capitalism for made up reasons
    - ludamad 5y ago
      Which I see as a problem, as world powers are very distinct, seemingly have a hard time when they don't ingrain capitalism to a large degree (China) and one is definitely required to have a robust alternative to capitalism
      - 93po 5y ago
        I don't think we've had a singular large-scale example of non-capitalism that wasn't experiencing tremendous external pressure to fail. I really wish people would stop pretending like it's impossible when it's been sabotaged at every attempt.
  - justinator 5y ago
    > I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely interested in what you believe would get us from here to a Startrek-like economic system. There's gotta be fanfiction where everyone actual is a cyborg, it's only Data that's cognizant of that fact, which oddly makes him more human that everyone else. So that's my answer: get rid of the humans. I would also say, "let's try Anarchism" but starships are anything but lacking hierarchy. They're little benevolent fascist city-states. But Fascism isn't popular with everyone it seems.
ashtonkem 5y ago
And we’re lucky if those billion dollar military projects even work. More often than not you get a F-35; expensive and underperforming.

vidoc 5y ago

> The cost of R&D to bring a new drug to market is around $1 billion This is one of the most well know, tired, scammy talking point big-pharma has used for decades. Hint: in the very document you linked, htere is a 'costing method' section, you might want to read it a bit more carefully and you will discover the big scam: opportunity cost, not cost.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
Hmmm.... so you're arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market? Then why aren't you (or, at least, someone) out there developing new drugs on the cheap to undercut "Big Pharma"? Your opportunity awaits, dude.
- vidoc 5y ago
  > Hmmm.... so you're arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market? You just made a straw-man argument. I posted a 2 lines comment highlighting the fact that cost and opportunity cost are two very different things, to the point that the claim that taking a drug to market costing literally billions of dollars to poor drug companies can be taken with a grain of salt. You main take-away was that I am "arguing that it doesn't take years of time and billions of dollars to bring a drug to market".
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    No, I didn't make any kind of "straw man argument". In your original post, you referred to the claim that it costs billions of dollars as a "scam", which is exactly the same thing as calling it false (indeed, it's not only calling it false, it's calling it intentionally and perhaps criminally false). Now you're trying to walk back that claim by watering it down to "take it with a grain of salt" rather than calling it a "scam", but you did, in fact, deny that it costs billions. If it doesn't, in fact, cost billions, why isn't someone undercutting them?
    - 5y ago