3 ms·
>there is no reason that efforts to develop are better flu vaccination system need to be traded off against efforts to assure the reach of the current system I
by unclebucknasty 12y ago
>there is no reason that efforts to develop are better flu vaccination system need to be traded off against efforts to assure the reach of the current system
I'm not sure that this is true. From a purely market-driven perspective, pharma is able to successfully move this product each year, without risk of liability, and without additional R&D. As long as there is a PR machine around this current product that continues to "reach" and drive customers, then what's the incentive to engage in expensive R&D needed to develop the next round?
- dragonwriter 12y agoSince its a public health problem, I would expect that, were it adopted as a priority, that the incentive would be in the public funds allocated to grants for vaccine R&D, and (for existing Big Pharma firms) to avoid being left without a chair when the current gravy train ends (apologies for the mixed metaphors) when better vaccines are deployed.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago>were it adopted as a priority, Agreed. Once it becomes a priority with the subsequent funding/grants, I think that's when we'd see movement. Ironically, however, I wonder if the hype around the current program even slows adoption of new priorities. Though, perhaps acknowledgments such as the type referenced by public health officials in this article portend the start of some movement. >left without a chair when the current gravy train ends when better vaccines are deployed I wonder if their thinking is that this problem is easily fixed through acquisition if/when the time comes, especially in an industry as M & A-driven as pharma. Meanwhile, gravy-train.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]