6 ms·

Socializing research for major diseases seams like a no-brainer to me since the end goal is so well-defined. It's not a question of "do you want the budget hepa

by bluthru 12y ago

Socializing research for major diseases seams like a no-brainer to me since the end goal is so well-defined. It's not a question of "do you want the budget hepatitis vaccine or the deluxe hepatitis vaccine?", it's simply one vaccine. The demand is also well-defined: people will spend virtually anything to live a healthy life. The polio vaccine was funded by federal money, which it allowed it to be reproduced freely.

Jedd 12y ago
Other than 'some people might not be so wealthy' I haven't heard any good arguments against a given country moving all pharma research over to a government agency. (Most arguments are emotional / political / historical / naively optimistic about the current situation.)
- bluthru 12y ago
  Also: information sharing. If private companies are competing for a hepatitis cure they're not sharing their advancements, which could inhibit the speed of discovery. That sounds like a public health issue to me.
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  Hard to get away from the emotion of it when you're looking at two lines, one which says "Number of people who can afford to pay" and "Price" and picking the point that intersects. I think the most sensible argument here is that there is nothing that is guaranteeing that you are on one particular side of that intercept, despite wherever you currently may be.
- streptomycin 12y ago
  It's largely the same argument for why it would be bad to nationalize other huge industries.
zo1 12y ago
"Socializing research for major diseases seams like a no-brainer to me since the end goal is so well-defined." It's not as well-defined as you'd think in all aspects. I suppose you've read some of the comments in this thread about R&D costs? Care to suggest how much this new government agency should get per year? Oh, and don't forget, if you don't give it enough funding, then you're an "evil bastard and you want people to die". And if you don't give them enough extra every year, then you're also an "evil bastard and want sick children to die". I don't really mean to say you're an evil bastard or anything. But that is exactly the sort of arguments and public discourse that will crop up if such an agency were ever to be founded. And because "cost" or "profit" is not there anymore to temper the investment vs payout, the agency will end up being a funding black hole of guilt. Sure, giving everyone access to health life is a noble ideal. But as I've said before, illness and death never end and we're fighting a losing game if we intend on beating it with public money. But who knows, maybe if we devote all of society's resources to the problem, we could eventually grant everyone healthy immortality. But we have no idea if/when that might happen.

by bluthru 12y ago

Jedd 12y ago

Other than 'some people might not be so wealthy' I haven't heard any good arguments against a given country moving all pharma research over to a government agency. (Most arguments are emotional / political / historical / naively optimistic about the current situation.)

bluthru 12y ago
Also: information sharing. If private companies are competing for a hepatitis cure they're not sharing their advancements, which could inhibit the speed of discovery. That sounds like a public health issue to me.
GhotiFish 12y ago
Hard to get away from the emotion of it when you're looking at two lines, one which says "Number of people who can afford to pay" and "Price" and picking the point that intersects. I think the most sensible argument here is that there is nothing that is guaranteeing that you are on one particular side of that intercept, despite wherever you currently may be.
streptomycin 12y ago
It's largely the same argument for why it would be bad to nationalize other huge industries.

zo1 12y ago

"Socializing research for major diseases seams like a no-brainer to me since the end goal is so well-defined." It's not as well-defined as you'd think in all aspects. I suppose you've read some of the comments in this thread about R&D costs? Care to suggest how much this new government agency should get per year? Oh, and don't forget, if you don't give it enough funding, then you're an "evil bastard and you want people to die". And if you don't give them enough extra every year, then you're also an "evil bastard and want sick children to die". I don't really mean to say you're an evil bastard or anything. But that is exactly the sort of arguments and public discourse that will crop up if such an agency were ever to be founded. And because "cost" or "profit" is not there anymore to temper the investment vs payout, the agency will end up being a funding black hole of guilt. Sure, giving everyone access to health life is a noble ideal. But as I've said before, illness and death never end and we're fighting a losing game if we intend on beating it with public money. But who knows, maybe if we devote all of society's resources to the problem, we could eventually grant everyone healthy immortality. But we have no idea if/when that might happen.