|
|
|
|
|
|
by jernfrost
2986 days ago
|
|
|
Government is already developing most of the drugs to my knowlege. Univerisites research drugs with public money. Universities then work with companies to commercialise it. As far as I know the most productive research places like xerox-parc was pretty open ended. There was not clear profit driven goals. We also see massive success with open source projects which suggests to me that there are other ways of organizing this research which we have done very little to explore. Not strange since there is a mssive profit incentive by industry to lobby us against ever trying alternatives. |
|
|
That's a nice little scam they put together a while back. If the government funds the research then it shouldn't be patented -- the taxpayer already paid for it, they shouldn't have to pay for it a second time.
But the industry has better lobbyists than the public, so they get the taxpayer to fund the research, then wait to see if it pans out, then buy it for pennies on the dollar after they already have some evidence that it works. If it doesn't work, the taxpayer foots the bill and gets nothing. If it does work, the taxpayers have to pay even more money to use the fruits of the research they already paid for.
It's corruption plain and simple.
> We also see massive success with open source projects which suggests to me that there are other ways of organizing this research which we have done very little to explore.
Open source works, but it's mostly non-governmental.
The thing that worked really well historically was small research trials conducted by individual doctors as part of their practice and then replicated at larger scale if they panned out. That's all but impossible with the current FDA rules, somewhat for good reason (some of those experiments had a tangential relationship with ethics). But the current rules are just crushingly bureaucratic.