Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thinkmoreharder t1_jan1chn wrote

If a country’s govt paid for the research, then citizens of that country should get the drug at cost of manufacturing and distribution; approximately the cost of an average generic drug. The taxpayers of the country that paid should also recrive royalties on profits from foreign sales of the product they paid to develop. EDIT: maybe my comment should be in/economics.


jonathanrdt t1_jao07cn wrote

All of those publicly funded research papers should be available without paywalls too.


AnuraSK t1_jap288n wrote

In Canada, to get tri-agency funding for research I believe it is a requirement that the papers be freely availabe, somewhere.


va_str t1_jao68jv wrote

Or maybe profit extraction on lifesaving drugs should be illegal and relevant patents should be public domain, so any government and organisation can produce and distribute them at cost at maximum.


AnnexBlaster t1_jaobkkz wrote

How can companies improve current drugs or research new technologies if they dont make profit? How can the government afford to fund research in biomedical science if it doesnt get any profit from taxes?

This means that in a government only funded research world with no “profit”, the “profit” to conduct research will be taken from tax payers.

Literally at the square one again, the only benefit is less price gouging, but theres less freedom in research. And clinical trials still cost billions of dollars.


va_str t1_jaqd1qo wrote

Taxes aren't profit extraction and this idea that the profit motive is driving research is nonsense. Funding to conduct research is already taken from taxpayers.


AnnexBlaster t1_jaqddst wrote

If the government wants to accelerate research it has to tax more. Its also getting less taxes from biotech/pharm companies because they cant make profit.

In order to bridge this gap the government needs to make money from somewhere (taxes) or no research will be funded.

The US government cannot print money forever without raising taxes.


va_str t1_jaqfbo6 wrote

I work in cancer research in the UK, and ALL our money is coming from the government. Where there's a will and relevant priorities, there's a way. That's really the crucial part, because governments have plenty of money to spend. Where they spend it is the real question, not how to raise more.

That said, even just moving the extracted profit into taxes instead would yield a substantial improvement. People make money off of this. Stop that and move the money back into research.


watabadidea t1_jatzr04 wrote

>...this idea that the profit motive is driving research is nonsense.

Yeah, if the is one thing I know for certain, it is that big pharma hates making decision based on what stands to generate more profit.


va_str t1_jauwxj7 wrote

One of those decisions being risk-aversity and subsidizing most of their research, yes.


watabadidea t1_javevpd wrote

There are lots of ways to avoid risk, lots of different levels of risk aversion, and lots of potential government subsidies to apply for. How do companies decide on how best to avoid risk, what a proper level of risk aversion/risk acceptance is prudent, and what specific subsidies to target/apply for?

Those are really tough questions and the answer is a complete mystery. Of course, I do seem to recall an interview one time with a Big Pharma exec where he said "None of our decisions in these areas have anything to do with profit motivation. Lord knows we don't operate in a trillion dollar, for-profit industry because we want to make money."

So, at the very least, we know it's not that, right?


va_str t1_javhqo7 wrote

You're really making my point for me. There are indeed plenty of options, and the profit motive motivates choices towards greater profits, not the greater good.


200um t1_jaq3mf0 wrote

Wait, taken from the taxpayers? We already pay this profit as taxpayers (as consumers and taxpayers) and multiples above what is needed. Most of the base research is publicly paid for.

Pharmaceutical companies will develop products based on a specific conception of this market. This is a different set of priorities than the state. Moreover, they actively work to influence doctors, hospitals, and in the US have nearly captured all legislators. Selling and marketing account for more or equal to research and development.

Freedom of research is questionable. What if a disease/condition targets a segment of the population that is less profitable/politically important? Or if a competitor made an erectile-dysfunction drug then all others companies have to compete due to lucrative market rather than other needs.


SephithDarknesse t1_jaqhaq3 wrote

The problem you're ignoring here is that these companies are double dipping. They are funded by the government to research these new drugs AND are charging a huge amount for them. Pick one.


thinkmoreharder t1_jap19p0 wrote

If paid for with tax money, I’d be open to all of us voting on that. If paid with private money, taking the profit would stop people from investing in new drugs, so that could be damanging to society.


Viendictive t1_japi6vl wrote

Profit is sometimes the only (or best) incentive for a private company to take the risks and invest, or else why bother? Competition between the private entities benefits the public too.


va_str t1_jaqdapj wrote

Too bad that the reality of that theory is conglomerates eating up subsidies and then gouging us again for IP we've already paid for. There is no competition after capital accumulation has run its course and the legislative is captured by the few remaining monopolies.


Desperate_Wafer_8566 t1_jar02xg wrote

Industry, academia and government should be and often are symbiotic in nature. The only ones opposed to this successful approach to invention and progress are conservatives who, as patsies to the elite rich, actively try to cut off funding to R&D in government and academia and send us backwards.