5 ms·

Why would you patent a cancer drug?

by imran 14y ago

shared4you 14y ago
Medical patents involve a lot of money invested into making the drug, ex. producing new chemicals, laboratory equipment costs, huge salaries for scientists in R&D, etc. Patents are one of the best ways to "earn back". Why a cancer drug? Why not? There are lots of companies fighting for this huge market, and if you're the first to have invented a medicine, you would like to be rewarded, isn't it?
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  What does controlling a market have to do with being rewarded for saving people from dying of cancer?
  - hmottestad 14y ago
    If you are first to market with a drug (RealGoodDrug tm) against X. Then you can test your RealGoodDrug tm against a placebo. If you are second to market you have to test your drug against RealGoodDrug tm and not against a placebo (because that would be immoral). So you can't come up with a half good drug, or a just as good drug with more side-effects.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    Nothing. Its to do with getting back the millions invested in the R&D. Do you even have the slightest idea how much it costs to develop these drugs? Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor.
    - notimetorelax 14y ago
      > Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor. It seems to be in line with the this [1] comment but due to completely different reasons. If you have some insight into money allocation in a drug company could give an answer to the linked comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5472861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5472861
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - DXL 14y ago
    If you would not control the market (i.e. obtain a patent) after inventing a drug, competition would drive down the price to marginal costs. /Marginal/ costs do not reflect development costs, so you would never earn back your development costs.
ams6110 14y ago
Hmm. Maybe because you've spent many millions of dollars developing it, proving it works to some significant degree, and getting it approved by various government authorities?
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Why haven't you, personally, dedicated your life to making cancer drugs? The people that do so would rather like to be compensated for it. You may think it's an imperfect system but until you personally start making cancer drugs for the world for free maybe you should think a little deeper on the subject.
- dhimes 14y ago
  I only regret that I have but one vote to give for bringing this comment out of the gray (apologies to Nathan Hale). And, I would add: talent, on average, goes where the money is. We've seen it in sports, and it's true in academic pursuits. Plus, it takes a helluva lot of money to get these drugs to market. Nobody gives that money to a company without a fair shot of getting it back. Hence, for the time being anyway, patents are a requirement in that field.
  - ctoth 14y ago
    I would like to discuss this claim that it takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market, and this is why drugs are currently so expensive. This seems to be common wisdom in this thread, but I note an extreme lack of actually cited sources, so I decided to go dig some up. I remember reading a book in 2004 discussing what percentage of medical industry profits went towards research and development, verses what percentage went towards marketing. While I cannot recall the title (I have read thousands of books since then), the idea did stick with me, and a bit of quick Googling produced some results: First, and perhaps most shocking: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 Here is a copy of this research without the paywall: http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.pdf http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.... According to the pop-sci summary of this article in the HufPo, what these numbers translate to is that Pharma companies spend 19 times as much on self-promotion as they do basic research: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp... If you assert that drugs are so expensive because of the cost to develop them, and yet I have demonstrated that the R&D budget is a small percentage of the money which the drug companies are spending, do you withdraw your assertion? Given the aforementioned lack of sources in this thread I somehow doubt it. Ah: I found a review/summary of the book which originally sparked this comment. It's The Truth About the Drug Companies, and is by Marcia Angell, the first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. The review is available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru... More: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/...
chollida1 14y ago
There are multiple benefits: 1) Be able to pay the best scientists in the world to find ways to extend our lives. 2) To be able to afford to produce the drug so that people can actually benefit from the work of the above mentioned scientists 3) To make enough money to fund research in other areas of medicine Or put another way, currently no one has found a way for private companies to do cutting edge research, and manufacturing of drugs without having a guaranteed profit stream.
arpp 14y ago
because people are disgusting... companies are obsessed with money and they really give a shit if there are hundred of thousands dying because they aren't rich enough for buying their products. The right to use certain information (aka patents) is more important than human life in our society.
- thatfloatingguy 14y ago
  I think the whole evergreening and "patent a trivial change to our drug because the previous patent expiring" thing is wrong, but a company should profit after inventing a life-saving drug. Look at it this way, if tomorrow a company came out with a complete cure for cancer, and we took away their right to profit from it, yes it'd put cancer victims in a good spot. But it'd screw everyone with a not-yet-cured disease over, when the company can't afford to pay employees, and the medical research industry goes down the drain. People work for a profit, and that includes medical researches, who go through years of school. You take away that profit motive, they'll have to go do something else to put a roof over their head, and you'll save more lives in the short-term at a very high very long-term expense.
  - arpp 14y ago
    Sure... US $58.566 billion (2011) is not enough profits
    - icebraining 14y ago
      But they only have that profit because they have patents. You can't use it to justify the claim that patents are unnecessary.
- vaadu 14y ago
  I'm assuming you think drugs come from the Easter bunny.

Why would you patent a cancer drug?

by imran 14y ago

Why would you patent a cancer drug?

Medical patents involve a lot of money invested into making the drug, ex. producing new chemicals, laboratory equipment costs, huge salaries for scientists in R&D, etc. Patents are one of the best ways to "earn back". Why a cancer drug? Why not? There are lots of companies fighting for this huge market, and if you're the first to have invented a medicine, you would like to be rewarded, isn't it?

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
What does controlling a market have to do with being rewarded for saving people from dying of cancer?
- hmottestad 14y ago
  If you are first to market with a drug (RealGoodDrug tm) against X. Then you can test your RealGoodDrug tm against a placebo. If you are second to market you have to test your drug against RealGoodDrug tm and not against a placebo (because that would be immoral). So you can't come up with a half good drug, or a just as good drug with more side-effects.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Nothing. Its to do with getting back the millions invested in the R&D. Do you even have the slightest idea how much it costs to develop these drugs? Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor.
  - notimetorelax 14y ago
    > Often the rewards for the actual people who do the R&D are pretty poor. It seems to be in line with the this [1] comment but due to completely different reasons. If you have some insight into money allocation in a drug company could give an answer to the linked comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5472861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5472861
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DXL 14y ago
  If you would not control the market (i.e. obtain a patent) after inventing a drug, competition would drive down the price to marginal costs. /Marginal/ costs do not reflect development costs, so you would never earn back your development costs.

ams6110 14y ago

Hmm. Maybe because you've spent many millions of dollars developing it, proving it works to some significant degree, and getting it approved by various government authorities?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Why haven't you, personally, dedicated your life to making cancer drugs? The people that do so would rather like to be compensated for it. You may think it's an imperfect system but until you personally start making cancer drugs for the world for free maybe you should think a little deeper on the subject.

dhimes 14y ago
I only regret that I have but one vote to give for bringing this comment out of the gray (apologies to Nathan Hale). And, I would add: talent, on average, goes where the money is. We've seen it in sports, and it's true in academic pursuits. Plus, it takes a helluva lot of money to get these drugs to market. Nobody gives that money to a company without a fair shot of getting it back. Hence, for the time being anyway, patents are a requirement in that field.
- ctoth 14y ago
  I would like to discuss this claim that it takes a lot of money to bring a drug to market, and this is why drugs are currently so expensive. This seems to be common wisdom in this thread, but I note an extreme lack of actually cited sources, so I decided to go dig some up. I remember reading a book in 2004 discussing what percentage of medical industry profits went towards research and development, verses what percentage went towards marketing. While I cannot recall the title (I have read thousands of books since then), the idea did stick with me, and a bit of quick Googling produced some results: First, and perhaps most shocking: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 Here is a copy of this research without the paywall: http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.pdf http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/BMJ-Innova_ARTICLE_8-11-12.... According to the pop-sci summary of this article in the HufPo, what these numbers translate to is that Pharma companies spend 19 times as much on self-promotion as they do basic research: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-comp... If you assert that drugs are so expensive because of the cost to develop them, and yet I have demonstrated that the R&D budget is a small percentage of the money which the drug companies are spending, do you withdraw your assertion? Given the aforementioned lack of sources in this thread I somehow doubt it. Ah: I found a review/summary of the book which originally sparked this comment. It's The Truth About the Drug Companies, and is by Marcia Angell, the first female editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. The review is available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-tru... More: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/...

chollida1 14y ago

There are multiple benefits: 1) Be able to pay the best scientists in the world to find ways to extend our lives. 2) To be able to afford to produce the drug so that people can actually benefit from the work of the above mentioned scientists 3) To make enough money to fund research in other areas of medicine Or put another way, currently no one has found a way for private companies to do cutting edge research, and manufacturing of drugs without having a guaranteed profit stream.

arpp 14y ago

because people are disgusting... companies are obsessed with money and they really give a shit if there are hundred of thousands dying because they aren't rich enough for buying their products. The right to use certain information (aka patents) is more important than human life in our society.

thatfloatingguy 14y ago
I think the whole evergreening and "patent a trivial change to our drug because the previous patent expiring" thing is wrong, but a company should profit after inventing a life-saving drug. Look at it this way, if tomorrow a company came out with a complete cure for cancer, and we took away their right to profit from it, yes it'd put cancer victims in a good spot. But it'd screw everyone with a not-yet-cured disease over, when the company can't afford to pay employees, and the medical research industry goes down the drain. People work for a profit, and that includes medical researches, who go through years of school. You take away that profit motive, they'll have to go do something else to put a roof over their head, and you'll save more lives in the short-term at a very high very long-term expense.
- arpp 14y ago
  Sure... US $58.566 billion (2011) is not enough profits
  - icebraining 14y ago
    But they only have that profit because they have patents. You can't use it to justify the claim that patents are unnecessary.
vaadu 14y ago
I'm assuming you think drugs come from the Easter bunny.