3 ms·
Not only has this been addressed in the article, as mentioned by another commenter, but this market place is intended to apply only to Stage I to IIa trials, an
by _benedict 12y ago
Not only has this been addressed in the article, as mentioned by another commenter, but this market place is intended to apply only to Stage I to IIa trials, and currently only non-randomized trials. These concerns, even were they not already dealt with, would be moot as phase IIb and III trials would still need to be done via the normal (even more expensive) mechanism, with larger more robust populations.
- maldeh 12y agoAlright, that's fair. I'm not too familiar with the design of these trials, so I concede that my worrying about sample-poisoning is likely misplaced. Still, and I realise I'm coming dangerously close to sounding like a tinfoil spouting "money corrupts" as I type this, I would still be wary about how introducing massive amounts of private donations of this sort might impact the process of bringing drugs to the market. For the moment, this sounds great as trials could now have a source of funding where there currently is none... but it seems to me that this would further exacerbate the problem with the pharma industry focusing on cash-cow meds. Things could get such that it would be more profitable to target an exotic ailment with wealthy backers than to target an affliction disproportionately affecting the plebes. Not that I'm saying that we must not explore alternatives to the current policy of denying experimental drugs to terminal patients. I'm simply cautioning that we have limited resources and researchers, so we ought to be careful how policy changes influences their priorities over the years.