[StreamBright]

Funny that some of the pharmaceutical research is 60-70% public money yet the results are IPd by the company.

[afarrell]

60-70% public money

How are you judging the percentage there? Are you including the cost of drugs that don't get approved?

[StreamBright]

You can read here about the process in the US more:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/

I guess this is different country by country.

[cowsandmilk]

Nothing in that link says pharmaceutical research is 60-70% public money.

[StreamBright]

According to somebody who works in this industry it is the standard contribution. Does not matter if the drug does not get approved, the money is for the research, as far as I know.

[refurb]

Uhhh... no.

If you compare the NIH budget vs. the major pharmaceutical companies, it's a 2 to 1 ration. And not all the NIH budget is spent on drug research. It's mostly basic science.

[atom-morgan]

I find it funny that people blame this on greed/capitalism/profit instead of IP laws.

[ThomPete]

The IP laws are based on greed/capitalism/profit. No one besides the big corps want this just ask Mickey Mouse.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The IP laws are based on greed/capitalism/profit. No one besides the big corps want this just ask Mickey Mouse.

I believe that's the point. "Big corporations lobbying government for rent-seeking legislation" isn't capitalism, it's corruption.

[ThomPete]

Lobbyism is legal so no.

[AnthonyMouse]

Corrupt doesn't mean illegal, it means dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity, etc.

[ThomPete]

Or fraudulent which is the right word in this context. Lobbyism is legal whether it's dishonest, disloyal, lacking in integrity.

So corruption in this context should be understood as fraudulent which is illegal.

[atom-morgan]

But they only exist because the government has the power to create those laws. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[burkaman]

You can still hate the player, especially when they have more power than you. "It's legal" doesn't mean it's right.

[atom-morgan]

I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I simply believe people target their outrage at the wrong party in this instance.

[hfourm]

Its also reasonable to both blame the laws and the insert "greedy" player here. It usually takes two parties to mutually benefit off a partnership

[ThomPete]

They still exist because companies lobby to keep them alive.

I don't hate the player I simply observe how the game is played.

[atom-morgan]

True. Point is I think the government should be the focus here, not the players who take advantage of the rules they create.

[ThomPete]

I think both should be at the focus as they are often two pieces of the same part.

[basch]

which is why I dont understand the "let's just buy them from canada" mentality

buying drugs abroad just skirts ip price fixing. we can skirt price fixing here by making drugs and not paying the ransom costs.

should the government be able to pull eminent domain on lifesaving drugs?

should all drugs purchased with public funds (ex medicare) be exempt from any cost/margin past manufacturing?

it feels to me like importing from canada is having cake and eating it too. we either agree that full drug prices are legitimate or we agree they are unethical. you cant pretend both are compatible worldviews.