6 ms·

Raise the salary.

mirimir 12y ago
The US pharmaceutical industry is too wealthy for that to be workable. The game is to make friends while working at the FDA, and then to cash in. In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. The pharmaceutical industry should play no role in that, and should merely manufacture approved drugs. Edit: Please see The Truth About Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, M.D., formerly an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
- refurb 12y ago
  In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. Where do the funds for R&D come from? Getting academia to discover drugs is not a workable solution.
  - ska 12y ago
    Academia already does much of the fundamental research. It's mostly the "D" part of the "R&D" that is expensive, and shapes the pharma industry. Some of this could be addressed by making clinical trials cheaper to operate and initialize, but it's always going to be quite expensive.
    - refurb 12y ago
      I agree that most fundamental (chemistry, biology) research is done in academia. But fundamental research doesn't deliver new drugs, it only supports discovery. About 24% of new drugs are discovered in academia.[1] The remainder come from industry. I think offloading all discovery to academia, plus the "D" part of R&D would be something academia would struggle with. [1]http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_...
      - ska 12y ago
        Sure, a lot of discovery is done in industry too (and, as you note, is supported by academic outputs). But that's not the expensive part which is what I was trying to say -- obviously not clearly enough.
        mirimir 12y ago
        Reforming the current system would be difficult, no doubt. And perhaps it's unworkable. Big pharma also owns academia. Much of the peer-reviewed literature for many drugs has been ghostwritten by industry-funded consultants. Sometimes the authors don't even read their manuscripts, and in some cases haven't been informed of them. Some journals have been addressing this, but it's pervasive. In any case, the current system isn't working. Incentives for fraud far outweigh those for improving public health. And there is virtually no accountability.

Raise the salary.

The US pharmaceutical industry is too wealthy for that to be workable. The game is to make friends while working at the FDA, and then to cash in. In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. The pharmaceutical industry should play no role in that, and should merely manufacture approved drugs. Edit: Please see The Truth About Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, M.D., formerly an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

refurb 12y ago
In order to serve the public interest, drug discovery and testing ought to occur in academia. Where do the funds for R&D come from? Getting academia to discover drugs is not a workable solution.
- ska 12y ago
  Academia already does much of the fundamental research. It's mostly the "D" part of the "R&D" that is expensive, and shapes the pharma industry. Some of this could be addressed by making clinical trials cheaper to operate and initialize, but it's always going to be quite expensive.
  - refurb 12y ago
    I agree that most fundamental (chemistry, biology) research is done in academia. But fundamental research doesn't deliver new drugs, it only supports discovery. About 24% of new drugs are discovered in academia.[1] The remainder come from industry. I think offloading all discovery to academia, plus the "D" part of R&D would be something academia would struggle with. [1]http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_come_from_the_numbers.php http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/04/where_drugs_...
    - ska 12y ago
      Sure, a lot of discovery is done in industry too (and, as you note, is supported by academic outputs). But that's not the expensive part which is what I was trying to say -- obviously not clearly enough.
      - mirimir 12y ago
        Reforming the current system would be difficult, no doubt. And perhaps it's unworkable. Big pharma also owns academia. Much of the peer-reviewed literature for many drugs has been ghostwritten by industry-funded consultants. Sometimes the authors don't even read their manuscripts, and in some cases haven't been informed of them. Some journals have been addressing this, but it's pervasive. In any case, the current system isn't working. Incentives for fraud far outweigh those for improving public health. And there is virtually no accountability.