3 ms·
It's way more than hundreds of millions, it's now well over a billion and most of it by a large margin goes into failed programs. Though it does seem to be gett
by svara 3y ago
It's way more than hundreds of millions, it's now well over a billion and most of it by a large margin goes into failed programs. Though it does seem to be getting better (or getting worse more slowly?) recently.
https://media.nature.com/lw1024/magazine-assets/d41573-020-00059-3/d41573-020-00059-3_17934800.jpg https://media.nature.com/lw1024/magazine-assets/d41573-020-0...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom%27s_law
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Retric 3y agoThere’s huge incentives to pad R&D spending numbers, so it’s important to consider the underlying reality here. “In many cases, the estimated cost of capital can be substantial, representing almost half of total development costs in some recent estimates.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855407/ Cost of capital makes sense in terms of ROI calculations, but it’s not going to show up as a line item on annual budgets. Similarly R&D at drug companies isn’t all drug development R&D.
- xbar 3y agoI think the point of the article is that R&D is not the actual source of the cost for developing new products.