3 ms·
The vast majority of the costs aren't in the early stages that happen at academic institutions.
by someNameIG 2y ago
The vast majority of the costs aren't in the early stages that happen at academic institutions.
- lvl155 2y agoNo. 99% of the costs are put on patients who take these drugs that are often ineffective. Heck, they give dying patients placebos. Yes, patients are willing to give up everything to live (and sometimes merely for weeks/months), and pharma is using them for experiments. Do you want to put a price on that? What a cynical thing to say. This isn’t some AB testing for a new web app feature.
- someNameIG 2y agoI'm not sure what you're saying, are you against clinical trials?
- consteval 2y agoI think they could be, because I think you're looking for that 1/1000. Doing 1000 things and throwing away 999 is expensive. So sure, when you look at that 1/1000 you might say "oh the 1 isn't expensive". But you're also paying for the 999, and you have to in order to get that 1.
- someNameIG 2y agoTrue that a big part of the cost is absorbing the costs of failed drugs, but most of it is in clinical trials, which is normally past the academia setting.
- consteval 2y agoIf I had to guess, a tiny tiny percent of all potential drugs make it to clinical trails. So again, now you're looking at 1 in 10,000. You're only looking at the 1, ignoring the 9,999, and saying "look pharma pays for all of it!" How much research at unis ends up being completely worthless from a pharmaceutical product perspective? Almost all of it. But how many products began based on research conducted at universities? ... all of them.