5 ms·

This is an oft-repeated sound bite by politicians looking to score cheap points, but it isn’t true. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/rep-ocasio-cortez

This is an oft-repeated sound bite by politicians looking to score cheap points, but it isn’t true. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/rep-ocasio-cortez-and-where-drugs-come https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/rep-ocasio-cortez-...

throwawayqqq11 3y ago
I dont buy it. Your linked blog post is about Derek Lowe gathering anecdotes, mostly. His linked article (a better one) https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-numbers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-n... is biased, because it only looks at approved drugs. He himself turns slightly to the R&D side and almost gets it. > And now to innovation - 118 of the drugs during this period were considered to have scientific novelty (46%), and of those: > 44% were from pharmaceutical companies. > 25% were from biotech companies, and > 31% were from universities (transferred to either biotech or pharma). > The university-derived drugs clearly outperform in this category. What this also means is that 65% of the pharma-derived drugs get classed as "not innovative" To be fair, i dont think you can convince me, that the pharma industry has no incentive to externalize risky or less profitable research and would never do it. I have one anecdote for you too, hitting that exact spot: anti-biotics research. Because even though it has good prospect for profit, it is too risky research (kind of diminishing returns of R&D in that area). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7872909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7872909/
- refurb 3y ago
  Your logic doesn’t hold up. You’re forgetting that this data is where the drugs come from not who developed them. 100% of approved drugs were developed by pharma. And that’s the most expensive part. Spend $5M on early research is great, but all the academics out-license because the government isn’t going to bankroll the $100M-$500M cost of actually shepherding it through FDA approval. Hence most of the financial risk is borne by the pharma companies. And you’re right, this doesn’t include the billions spent by pharma on failed projects. It’s a great deal for society. Let private money fund development. Let them pay for the 90% failure rate. And in exchange, they get ~10 year of patent protection, so the winners pay out a 10-100x return (to make it worth while investing at all). Then after the patent runs out, the price falls 90%+ and society gets to pay pennies on the dollar for innovation.

throwawayqqq11 3y ago

I dont buy it. Your linked blog post is about Derek Lowe gathering anecdotes, mostly. His linked article (a better one) https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-numbers https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/where-drugs-come-n... is biased, because it only looks at approved drugs. He himself turns slightly to the R&D side and almost gets it. > And now to innovation - 118 of the drugs during this period were considered to have scientific novelty (46%), and of those: > 44% were from pharmaceutical companies. > 25% were from biotech companies, and > 31% were from universities (transferred to either biotech or pharma). > The university-derived drugs clearly outperform in this category. What this also means is that 65% of the pharma-derived drugs get classed as "not innovative" To be fair, i dont think you can convince me, that the pharma industry has no incentive to externalize risky or less profitable research and would never do it. I have one anecdote for you too, hitting that exact spot: anti-biotics research. Because even though it has good prospect for profit, it is too risky research (kind of diminishing returns of R&D in that area). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7872909/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7872909/

refurb 3y ago
Your logic doesn’t hold up. You’re forgetting that this data is where the drugs come from not who developed them. 100% of approved drugs were developed by pharma. And that’s the most expensive part. Spend $5M on early research is great, but all the academics out-license because the government isn’t going to bankroll the $100M-$500M cost of actually shepherding it through FDA approval. Hence most of the financial risk is borne by the pharma companies. And you’re right, this doesn’t include the billions spent by pharma on failed projects. It’s a great deal for society. Let private money fund development. Let them pay for the 90% failure rate. And in exchange, they get ~10 year of patent protection, so the winners pay out a 10-100x return (to make it worth while investing at all). Then after the patent runs out, the price falls 90%+ and society gets to pay pennies on the dollar for innovation.