7 ms·

The scientists who develop such drugs generally do not do it to make billions of dollars. Their salaries usually are in the 6 figures and I see no evidence tha

The scientists who develop such drugs generally do not do it to make billions of dollars. Their salaries usually are in the 6 figures and I see no evidence that fewer drugs would be developed if society paid for development through universities and nonprofit research centers. There are other incentives in life other than money.

wyager 13y ago
>There are other incentives in life other than money. But there aren't other ways to fund drug research.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > But there aren't other ways to fund drug research. Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the public good. Granting monopolies to private corporations is hardly the only way to achieve things. Scientist's aren't in science for the money, science generally pays shit anyway; they're in it for other reasons.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    You can't feed a family on good-will and happy thoughts. Edit: the parent was originally a snarky one-liner "Yes there are"
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      You don't need a private monopoly on medicine to feed a family, just a good wage from a publicly funded research institute.
      - mbreese 13y ago
        Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there. This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts. But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        > Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health. > But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own. Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.
- np422 13y ago
  I think you forgot to finish that sentence with "currently in any wider use". The current system has become a few spots, take a look at the debate about cherry-picking clinical trials to get new drugs approved, requirements for pre-registration and the non-functional oversight of the same ... Perhaps trying new ways to fund drug research can be a part of revitalizing the system?
- piyush_soni 13y ago
  How about this (It's on YC today!): http://www.fastcompany.com/3025372/if-the-immunity-project-crowdfunds-this-synthetic-aids-vaccine-theyll-offer-it-free-to-every http://www.fastcompany.com/3025372/if-the-immunity-project-c...
mbreese 13y ago
Academia has a spotty track record when it comes to drug development. They don't have the money to put into lots of potential drugs, so they aren't able to test the breadth of targets that a Bayer would be able to. For all of the problems that Pharma has, they have been able to bring a lot of new drugs to market pretty efficiently.
Houshalter 13y ago
Drug development is not mutually exclusive. If nonprofits and universities could develop drugs so much cheaper why are they not already doing so?
mixedbit 13y ago
Exactly, drug research is science and should be treated as such. Other scientific discoveries are not patentable and we don't have problems with lack of scientists willing to do their jobs for university salaries. For me the notion that someone can claim a right to a chemical compound that has positive effect on our bodies is absurd. It's like Einstein patenting e=mc^2 and asking nuclear power plants to pay him.
MrScruff 13y ago
The costs involved in bringing a new drug to market are more than just the salaries of researchers though.
chaz 13y ago
That would be worth exploring, but the cost of developing a drug is astronomically high: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion." http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tru.... The most expensive part is Phase III Clinical Trials, and it's growing: "We examined drug development in four major public health areas and discovered that for any given drug on the market, typically 90 percent or more of that drug’s development costs are incurred in Phase III trials." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm No university or nonprofit has that kind of budget, and even if they did, they are unlikely to take on the risk of a failed drug.
- henrikschroder 13y ago
  Pharmaceutical companies typically spend more money on advertising than drug development which leads me to think that the patent system isn't that necessary to the overall profitability.
  - Panoramix 13y ago
    That would be a strong argument if you would provide some sort of evidence.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      probably referring to this from elsewhere in the thread: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
  - refurb 13y ago
    Ridiculous argument. Marketing spend is based on the idea you spend $X and get $X + Y back. This doesn't always work, but it's the general premise. This means without marketing dollars they'd be making less money.
michaelbuddy 13y ago
other incentives like what? The only thing I can think of as a reasonable incentive would be to create something that heals the sick but... ohhhhhhhhhhhh.. Seriously though I want to stab that guy. Maybe we should ask the scientists who put in the real work who they think should have access to the drugs.

wyager 13y ago

>There are other incentives in life other than money. But there aren't other ways to fund drug research.

gnaritas 13y ago
> But there aren't other ways to fund drug research. Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the public good. Granting monopolies to private corporations is hardly the only way to achieve things. Scientist's aren't in science for the money, science generally pays shit anyway; they're in it for other reasons.
- mbreese 13y ago
  You can't feed a family on good-will and happy thoughts. Edit: the parent was originally a snarky one-liner "Yes there are"
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    You don't need a private monopoly on medicine to feed a family, just a good wage from a publicly funded research institute.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there. This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts. But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        > Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc... I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health. > But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own. Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.
np422 13y ago
I think you forgot to finish that sentence with "currently in any wider use". The current system has become a few spots, take a look at the debate about cherry-picking clinical trials to get new drugs approved, requirements for pre-registration and the non-functional oversight of the same ... Perhaps trying new ways to fund drug research can be a part of revitalizing the system?
piyush_soni 13y ago
How about this (It's on YC today!): http://www.fastcompany.com/3025372/if-the-immunity-project-crowdfunds-this-synthetic-aids-vaccine-theyll-offer-it-free-to-every http://www.fastcompany.com/3025372/if-the-immunity-project-c...

mbreese 13y ago

Academia has a spotty track record when it comes to drug development. They don't have the money to put into lots of potential drugs, so they aren't able to test the breadth of targets that a Bayer would be able to. For all of the problems that Pharma has, they have been able to bring a lot of new drugs to market pretty efficiently.

Houshalter 13y ago

Drug development is not mutually exclusive. If nonprofits and universities could develop drugs so much cheaper why are they not already doing so?

mixedbit 13y ago

Exactly, drug research is science and should be treated as such. Other scientific discoveries are not patentable and we don't have problems with lack of scientists willing to do their jobs for university salaries. For me the notion that someone can claim a right to a chemical compound that has positive effect on our bodies is absurd. It's like Einstein patenting e=mc^2 and asking nuclear power plants to pay him.

MrScruff 13y ago

The costs involved in bringing a new drug to market are more than just the salaries of researchers though.

chaz 13y ago

That would be worth exploring, but the cost of developing a drug is astronomically high: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion." http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tru.... The most expensive part is Phase III Clinical Trials, and it's growing: "We examined drug development in four major public health areas and discovered that for any given drug on the market, typically 90 percent or more of that drug’s development costs are incurred in Phase III trials." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm No university or nonprofit has that kind of budget, and even if they did, they are unlikely to take on the risk of a failed drug.

henrikschroder 13y ago
Pharmaceutical companies typically spend more money on advertising than drug development which leads me to think that the patent system isn't that necessary to the overall profitability.
- Panoramix 13y ago
  That would be a strong argument if you would provide some sort of evidence.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    probably referring to this from elsewhere in the thread: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
- refurb 13y ago
  Ridiculous argument. Marketing spend is based on the idea you spend $X and get $X + Y back. This doesn't always work, but it's the general premise. This means without marketing dollars they'd be making less money.

michaelbuddy 13y ago

other incentives like what? The only thing I can think of as a reasonable incentive would be to create something that heals the sick but... ohhhhhhhhhhhh.. Seriously though I want to stab that guy. Maybe we should ask the scientists who put in the real work who they think should have access to the drugs.