4 ms·

pharmaceutical research is an extremely expensive, long term process. it could never get the same kind of funding in a public 'open source'-like setting that it

by aggronn 14y ago

pharmaceutical research is an extremely expensive, long term process. it could never get the same kind of funding in a public 'open source'-like setting that it could get in a setting where its treated as IP and is given the opportunity to create economic profits. society is notoriously bad as innovating when there is no profit motive. the pace of the 'march of science' due to curiosity and dedication to the betterment of mankind is, unfortunately, glacial. thats not to say there isn't somewhere in between, but when we have this discussion, we have to appreciate the role that money plays in innovation--something people at HN might be able to appreciate.

orbitingpluto 14y ago
Yeah, I know. Thankfully computing and the Internet was developed with private funds... no... wait, it wasn't. I don't disagree with you that a profit motive is a powerful force, but there reaches a point where greed causes more damage than good. Pharma is the prime example.
- spullara 14y ago
  The infrastructure was done with public funds. People making something useful out of it was done in the private sector almost exclusively. In fact, the government is now one of the biggest threats to the internet.
njs12345 14y ago
Total pharmaceutical R&D costs by the big 20 in 2010 were $96bn. That doesn't seem too much to raise globally, given that the NHS alone spends £10bn on branded drugs each year. It's also worth noting that there are ways of splitting up the research/production integration that exists at the moment while preserving the profit motive for research. I have seen prize funds touted as one way of doing this. There are some other interesting systems as well - see the proposal by Kremer in this article: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24647/InTech-Innovative_proposals_for_incentivizing_drug_development.pdf http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24647/InTech-Innovative_propo...
- ajays 14y ago
  Studies have shown that Big Pharma spends more on advertising than on R&D: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
  - jandrewrogers 14y ago
    This makes sense in the same way it makes sense in every other industry. They need to recover all of their sunk costs within a few years and marketing greatly increases rate of uptake and overall sales. Marketing frequently provides a positive return on investment, and in cases where the window to make a profit is short it is essential. It would be silly to invest marketing dollars in R&D if none of the developed products were able to return the cost of R&D within the patent window due to slow market uptake. The idea that these are independent or that marketing is a waste of money relative to R&D is pernicious and incorrect.
    - ajays 14y ago
      It may apply in other industries, but medicines are different. You have the whole medical school system to do your "marketing". There are scientific publications galore. For life-saving drugs, customers aren't swayed by "marketing" at all: if they have a condition that can be helped by the drug, they will go for it, marketing be damned. I know we like to jump to analogies in these forums ("digital music" == physical stuff; "no password" == unlocked door; etc.), but some situations are unique. I would like to think that the pharma industry, particularly the critical drugs section, is unique.
      - vidarh 14y ago
        The medical school system and journals is too slow for a new drug. By the time new doctors have enough influence, the drug is out of patent, and you can't count on every doctor to follow up journal articles about every new drug.
    - calibraxis 14y ago
btilly 14y ago
It turns out that pressure to keep patentable information private for potential profit slows the rate of progress in biotech. See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/11/29/8192713/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/... for an example of how much things improve when scientists are forced to share data. They wouldn't have done it if Mike Milken hadn't forced the issue. But he wanted to live enough to do so, and the result saves several thousand lives each year.

by aggronn 14y ago

orbitingpluto 14y ago

Yeah, I know. Thankfully computing and the Internet was developed with private funds... no... wait, it wasn't. I don't disagree with you that a profit motive is a powerful force, but there reaches a point where greed causes more damage than good. Pharma is the prime example.

spullara 14y ago
The infrastructure was done with public funds. People making something useful out of it was done in the private sector almost exclusively. In fact, the government is now one of the biggest threats to the internet.

njs12345 14y ago

Total pharmaceutical R&D costs by the big 20 in 2010 were $96bn. That doesn't seem too much to raise globally, given that the NHS alone spends £10bn on branded drugs each year. It's also worth noting that there are ways of splitting up the research/production integration that exists at the moment while preserving the profit motive for research. I have seen prize funds touted as one way of doing this. There are some other interesting systems as well - see the proposal by Kremer in this article: http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24647/InTech-Innovative_proposals_for_incentivizing_drug_development.pdf http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24647/InTech-Innovative_propo...

ajays 14y ago
Studies have shown that Big Pharma spends more on advertising than on R&D: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
- jandrewrogers 14y ago
  This makes sense in the same way it makes sense in every other industry. They need to recover all of their sunk costs within a few years and marketing greatly increases rate of uptake and overall sales. Marketing frequently provides a positive return on investment, and in cases where the window to make a profit is short it is essential. It would be silly to invest marketing dollars in R&D if none of the developed products were able to return the cost of R&D within the patent window due to slow market uptake. The idea that these are independent or that marketing is a waste of money relative to R&D is pernicious and incorrect.
  - ajays 14y ago
    It may apply in other industries, but medicines are different. You have the whole medical school system to do your "marketing". There are scientific publications galore. For life-saving drugs, customers aren't swayed by "marketing" at all: if they have a condition that can be helped by the drug, they will go for it, marketing be damned. I know we like to jump to analogies in these forums ("digital music" == physical stuff; "no password" == unlocked door; etc.), but some situations are unique. I would like to think that the pharma industry, particularly the critical drugs section, is unique.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      The medical school system and journals is too slow for a new drug. By the time new doctors have enough influence, the drug is out of patent, and you can't count on every doctor to follow up journal articles about every new drug.
  - calibraxis 14y ago

btilly 14y ago

It turns out that pressure to keep patentable information private for potential profit slows the rate of progress in biotech. See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/11/29/8192713/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/... for an example of how much things improve when scientists are forced to share data. They wouldn't have done it if Mike Milken hadn't forced the issue. But he wanted to live enough to do so, and the result saves several thousand lives each year.