3 ms·

Do you have evidence for "most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries)"? My understanding is that the opposite is tr

Do you have evidence for "most new treatment research is government funded (and by governments of other countries)"? My understanding is that the opposite is true: big pharmaceutical companies foot most of the bill for developing new drugs, then US-based insurers pay high costs, and most "other countries" enjoy much lower prices because US healthcare is effectively subsidizing their drug prices.

_yb2s 2y ago
It’s both working together- the basic research, including identifying targets and new chemistry and in some cases even the drugs themselves are mostly academia. However, clinical trials, and drug development that iterates the chemical structure itself and delivery approaches is very expensive, and almost entirely done by industry. Often the academics are working collaboratively with pharmaceutical- and can have either government or pharmaceutical funding for these projects. I’m an academic PI that has discovered and patented new drugs and licensed them to industry.
- croissants 2y ago
  Thanks. Do you have some sense of the breakdown in actual expenses incurred by the basic research and subsequent industrial development? It may qualitatively be true that many governments sponsor basic research that is later productized, but if the second bit costs 1000x more than the first bit, it's not exactly a fairly shared cost.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head, but most likely substantially more of the money is from industry. However, just answering that requires really carefully defining the question- because much academic research that happens to lead to new drugs or drug targets is basic medical and biology research- do you also include all biological research that does not turn out this way? On the industry side do you include all biotech startups hoping to sell to big pharmaceutical companies including the majority that do not? Clinical trials are incredibly expensive but also comparatively straightforward and require a very different set of facilities and skills from basic research. Pharma mostly could not recruit away the people with these skills from academia- they can’t offer the same freedom and job security, but the academics often found startups they work for on the side and ultimately sell to pharma if it works out. So comparing money spent isn’t the entire picture of relative contribution- as they are each doing parts the other is not equipped for.
loeg 2y ago
You are correct.

_yb2s 2y ago

It’s both working together- the basic research, including identifying targets and new chemistry and in some cases even the drugs themselves are mostly academia. However, clinical trials, and drug development that iterates the chemical structure itself and delivery approaches is very expensive, and almost entirely done by industry. Often the academics are working collaboratively with pharmaceutical- and can have either government or pharmaceutical funding for these projects. I’m an academic PI that has discovered and patented new drugs and licensed them to industry.

croissants 2y ago
Thanks. Do you have some sense of the breakdown in actual expenses incurred by the basic research and subsequent industrial development? It may qualitatively be true that many governments sponsor basic research that is later productized, but if the second bit costs 1000x more than the first bit, it's not exactly a fairly shared cost.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head, but most likely substantially more of the money is from industry. However, just answering that requires really carefully defining the question- because much academic research that happens to lead to new drugs or drug targets is basic medical and biology research- do you also include all biological research that does not turn out this way? On the industry side do you include all biotech startups hoping to sell to big pharmaceutical companies including the majority that do not? Clinical trials are incredibly expensive but also comparatively straightforward and require a very different set of facilities and skills from basic research. Pharma mostly could not recruit away the people with these skills from academia- they can’t offer the same freedom and job security, but the academics often found startups they work for on the side and ultimately sell to pharma if it works out. So comparing money spent isn’t the entire picture of relative contribution- as they are each doing parts the other is not equipped for.

loeg 2y ago

You are correct.