3 ms·

The profit motive is scary too though. It's a disincentive to finding a cure for something rather than a perpetual treatment.

philwelch 12y ago
Only if you hold a monopoly or participate in a cartel. If GSK has a perpetual treatment Merck has every incentive to release a cure to cut them out.
hderms 12y ago
Therefore we need to heavily incentivize researchers in the public sphere (who don't necessarily have the same type of perpetual treatment motive), along with allowing the free market researchers to operate according to their own goals. It would be irrelevant that pharma companies benefit more from perpetual treatment if public research was a more effective balance against that. If pharma doesn't pursue a cure, and a cure is conceivable, then it would behoove academics to pursue it (as the acclaim, and hopefully financial incentive they'd receive would easily motivate them). However, due to the competition for public funding, people are less likely to go down an expensive and time consuming path like that. They're much more likely to pursue incremental discoveries that lead to continued funding rather than bet the farm on a longshot. The main problem, in my opinion, is that there simply isn't enough science funding.
cryoshon 12y ago
For potentially lethal and widespread problems such as cancer or infectious disease, I have to disagree-- even in the most cynical of research spaces, there is a baseline of good-faith effort and desire to improve the human condition by offering a permanent fix. Additionally, whoever is able to provide a functional cure for a big name illness will ascend into the hallowed halls of science-- a fact that nobody forgets. I don't doubt that a prospective cure would cost a tremendous amount of cash to buy for yourself, but I think it'd still be a win for the pharmas. If a pharmaceutical firm was able to cure one kind of cancer with one drug, they'd be able to shutter all of their other production facilities for the myriad number of drugs which formerly targeted that cancer, amounting to a big decrease in their operating costs. Pair that with an entire market of people needing your one very expensive product, and I think it'd work out in their favor. Unfortunately, there is another side of this coin-- mental health. I believe that currently the problem with the profit motive which you identified is actively harming further research and development of effective cures. Cynically, the biotech companies want to make money, and psychopharmaceuticals are the ultimate cash cow as things are currently. A diagnosis of depression or ADHD means that they have a life-long customer. Thus, in order to maintain these customers buying the drugs at high prices, they must re-invent their cash cow drugs with minor changes in time with the patent cycle. There is no incentive to develop a cure, specifically because the system can be gamed in a very profitable way by rolling over patents and offering bandaid solutions.
danielweber 12y ago
Drug research is really hard. Researchers simply don't have the freedom to say "let's not work on a cure, let's work on a treatment instead." They throw a bunch of stuff into the hopper and if it works, they go with it.

philwelch 12y ago

Only if you hold a monopoly or participate in a cartel. If GSK has a perpetual treatment Merck has every incentive to release a cure to cut them out.

hderms 12y ago

Therefore we need to heavily incentivize researchers in the public sphere (who don't necessarily have the same type of perpetual treatment motive), along with allowing the free market researchers to operate according to their own goals. It would be irrelevant that pharma companies benefit more from perpetual treatment if public research was a more effective balance against that. If pharma doesn't pursue a cure, and a cure is conceivable, then it would behoove academics to pursue it (as the acclaim, and hopefully financial incentive they'd receive would easily motivate them). However, due to the competition for public funding, people are less likely to go down an expensive and time consuming path like that. They're much more likely to pursue incremental discoveries that lead to continued funding rather than bet the farm on a longshot. The main problem, in my opinion, is that there simply isn't enough science funding.

cryoshon 12y ago

For potentially lethal and widespread problems such as cancer or infectious disease, I have to disagree-- even in the most cynical of research spaces, there is a baseline of good-faith effort and desire to improve the human condition by offering a permanent fix. Additionally, whoever is able to provide a functional cure for a big name illness will ascend into the hallowed halls of science-- a fact that nobody forgets. I don't doubt that a prospective cure would cost a tremendous amount of cash to buy for yourself, but I think it'd still be a win for the pharmas. If a pharmaceutical firm was able to cure one kind of cancer with one drug, they'd be able to shutter all of their other production facilities for the myriad number of drugs which formerly targeted that cancer, amounting to a big decrease in their operating costs. Pair that with an entire market of people needing your one very expensive product, and I think it'd work out in their favor. Unfortunately, there is another side of this coin-- mental health. I believe that currently the problem with the profit motive which you identified is actively harming further research and development of effective cures. Cynically, the biotech companies want to make money, and psychopharmaceuticals are the ultimate cash cow as things are currently. A diagnosis of depression or ADHD means that they have a life-long customer. Thus, in order to maintain these customers buying the drugs at high prices, they must re-invent their cash cow drugs with minor changes in time with the patent cycle. There is no incentive to develop a cure, specifically because the system can be gamed in a very profitable way by rolling over patents and offering bandaid solutions.

danielweber 12y ago

Drug research is really hard. Researchers simply don't have the freedom to say "let's not work on a cure, let's work on a treatment instead." They throw a bunch of stuff into the hopper and if it works, they go with it.