3 ms·

Most startups that aim to market a drug don't work like that. The majority just buy the rights to a molecule from academic research, perhaps the founder's resea

Most startups that aim to market a drug don't work like that. The majority just buy the rights to a molecule from academic research, perhaps the founder's research. Before any trials, they have to raise a lot of money, more than enough to pay the founders, so even if the trials fail, the people that make the decisions still get paid. The large drug companies don't develop many new drugs anymore, and they don't fire their scientists when a trial fails. The people that make the decision on whether or not to move to clinical trials from preclinical data are not necessarily scientists either and they certainly will not be fired. Their decision on whether or not to proceed with trials is far more complicated than for an academic or an early startup such that it can make sense for a large pharma company to attempt a trial even if it is unlikely to work if the expected payoff is sufficient. They will definitely still get paid.

refurb 3y ago
This is wrong on a few points. Yes, scientists still get paid but the draw of start ups (like tech) is lower pay, and potential upside through equity. So if the drug fails, they just lost a significant amount of money versus staying in big pharma, and they lost their job. And for big pharma, if you don’t create new drugs, the company revenue falls and lay offs occur (like what is happening right now at several big pharma). The risk is much higher at a start up that it’s “do or die”, than big pharma, but it’s still there. Go and look at the massive layoffs that Pfizer, BMS, and other big pharma have done over the years.
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  > Yes, scientists still get paid but the draw of start ups (like tech) is lower pay, and potential upside through equity. > So if the drug fails, they just lost a significant amount of money versus staying in big pharma, and they lost their job. This is true of the scientists that aren't making the decisions. The ones that do make decisions are going to be able to retire if the startup was funded enough for clinical trials. > And for big pharma, if you don’t create new drugs, the company revenue falls and lay offs occur (like what is happening right now at several big pharma). Do you have data according to which the current layoffs in big pharmas are significantly affecting decision-makers? Because that's the matter at hand. As far as revenue decline, sure, for a given definition of "new drugs". The actual argument I've put forwards is that for a big pharma, it can make sense to run trials which are unlikely to succeed and with limited clinical utility if the financial upside is sufficient, which is not true for uni labs or biotech startups. > Go and look at the massive layoffs that Pfizer, BMS, and other big pharma have done over the years. Pfizer does "massive" layoffs every year, and just like BMS, every time a lot of the affected employees aren't executives fired due to unsuccesful trials, but employees of companies they bought. As far as researchers getting laid off, big pharmas are infamous nowadays for firing researchers when R&D pipelines are sucessful just as much as when they fail. Researchers are made redundant either way, unless for some reason further research in the same domain is needed (which often isn't the case). It also happens pretty often in startups that end up selling IP.

refurb 3y ago

This is wrong on a few points. Yes, scientists still get paid but the draw of start ups (like tech) is lower pay, and potential upside through equity. So if the drug fails, they just lost a significant amount of money versus staying in big pharma, and they lost their job. And for big pharma, if you don’t create new drugs, the company revenue falls and lay offs occur (like what is happening right now at several big pharma). The risk is much higher at a start up that it’s “do or die”, than big pharma, but it’s still there. Go and look at the massive layoffs that Pfizer, BMS, and other big pharma have done over the years.

sudosysgen 2y ago
> Yes, scientists still get paid but the draw of start ups (like tech) is lower pay, and potential upside through equity. > So if the drug fails, they just lost a significant amount of money versus staying in big pharma, and they lost their job. This is true of the scientists that aren't making the decisions. The ones that do make decisions are going to be able to retire if the startup was funded enough for clinical trials. > And for big pharma, if you don’t create new drugs, the company revenue falls and lay offs occur (like what is happening right now at several big pharma). Do you have data according to which the current layoffs in big pharmas are significantly affecting decision-makers? Because that's the matter at hand. As far as revenue decline, sure, for a given definition of "new drugs". The actual argument I've put forwards is that for a big pharma, it can make sense to run trials which are unlikely to succeed and with limited clinical utility if the financial upside is sufficient, which is not true for uni labs or biotech startups. > Go and look at the massive layoffs that Pfizer, BMS, and other big pharma have done over the years. Pfizer does "massive" layoffs every year, and just like BMS, every time a lot of the affected employees aren't executives fired due to unsuccesful trials, but employees of companies they bought. As far as researchers getting laid off, big pharmas are infamous nowadays for firing researchers when R&D pipelines are sucessful just as much as when they fail. Researchers are made redundant either way, unless for some reason further research in the same domain is needed (which often isn't the case). It also happens pretty often in startups that end up selling IP.