4 ms·

He does have a point though. Recurrent income is a lot better than 1 sale in any business. Scientists can have all the good will in the world if they are not

He does have a point though. Recurrent income is a lot better than 1 sale in any business. Scientists can have all the good will in the world if they are not allowed to publish by those sponsoring the research or not even given the funds to do the research in the first place.

retrac 5y ago
For example, consider the rather enormous amounts of money the industry spends on developing new statin after statin for blood pressure control. Many newer ones are more or less medically indistinguishable from existing ones on the market, but they are chemically distinct enough to be patentable. Similar story with SSRI antidepressants. Compare with the absolute dearth of research on new antibiotics and vaccines (until recently). We need those far more than we need yet another statin or SSRI, but those you can sell daily for life, and the others are a single dose.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  > developing new statin after statin for blood pressure control. Statins are developed to reduce cholesterol, not blood pressure. While there is some thin evidence that statins might effect BP, there's certainly nobody developing them for that currently.
pgeorgi 5y ago
In this particular instance "not allowed to publish" _definitely_ wasn't the problem, seeing how much crap had been published simply because it has "SARS-Cov-2" in its title. The research dynamics around Covid19 are very different from those of some run-off-the-mill treatment that was for the most part developed within the private sector (and might or might not have been met with kindness at the top level management which has been approving the POs) I can easily imagine various pharma companies individually (and without any kind of collusion!) de-emphasizing a cure in favor of a recurring treatment because each follows their self-interest.[1] In this case, money has been thrown at them with the explicit project description "develop a cure so that public policy can return to normal" (and as is quite normal, policy makers want it done quickly so they look good. I can live with that.) [1] It only takes one research facility to work on the same issue without such an incentive to make an entire industry scramble towards having the best cure (because otherwise they'd lose the treatment income _and_ leave the cure to somebody else). Identifying candidates where bean counters optimize for treatments even when a cure is possible, and then investing in such areas, might be public money well spent.
throwaway4good 5y ago
Ah. But this is exactly the argument the lizard people from outer space are making in V. However it turns that the scientists are actually the good guys as their grounded, systematic, critical thinking is key to prevent the free world from being taken over by evil manipulating entities. People should really rewatch this show.

retrac 5y ago

For example, consider the rather enormous amounts of money the industry spends on developing new statin after statin for blood pressure control. Many newer ones are more or less medically indistinguishable from existing ones on the market, but they are chemically distinct enough to be patentable. Similar story with SSRI antidepressants. Compare with the absolute dearth of research on new antibiotics and vaccines (until recently). We need those far more than we need yet another statin or SSRI, but those you can sell daily for life, and the others are a single dose.

technothrasher 5y ago
> developing new statin after statin for blood pressure control. Statins are developed to reduce cholesterol, not blood pressure. While there is some thin evidence that statins might effect BP, there's certainly nobody developing them for that currently.

pgeorgi 5y ago

In this particular instance "not allowed to publish" _definitely_ wasn't the problem, seeing how much crap had been published simply because it has "SARS-Cov-2" in its title. The research dynamics around Covid19 are very different from those of some run-off-the-mill treatment that was for the most part developed within the private sector (and might or might not have been met with kindness at the top level management which has been approving the POs) I can easily imagine various pharma companies individually (and without any kind of collusion!) de-emphasizing a cure in favor of a recurring treatment because each follows their self-interest.[1] In this case, money has been thrown at them with the explicit project description "develop a cure so that public policy can return to normal" (and as is quite normal, policy makers want it done quickly so they look good. I can live with that.) [1] It only takes one research facility to work on the same issue without such an incentive to make an entire industry scramble towards having the best cure (because otherwise they'd lose the treatment income _and_ leave the cure to somebody else). Identifying candidates where bean counters optimize for treatments even when a cure is possible, and then investing in such areas, might be public money well spent.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Ah. But this is exactly the argument the lizard people from outer space are making in V. However it turns that the scientists are actually the good guys as their grounded, systematic, critical thinking is key to prevent the free world from being taken over by evil manipulating entities. People should really rewatch this show.