[darawk]

Ok. Let's imagine a world where he achieves his dream. We've democratized access to molecular synthesis with no quality issues. Anyone, anywhere can safely and effectively produce any medicine of their choosing, without regard for IP laws.

Now what? Well, on the one hand, everyone on earth will have cheap, timely access to every medicine that currently exists. That's pretty awesome. On the other hand, who's going to fund the development of new medicines? I'm certainly not going to invest in it, are you?

[jdietrich]

A large proportion of pharmaceutical development is funded (directly or indirectly) by public funds. There's a very strong argument that single-payer healthcare systems should issue a blanket moratorium on buying new patented medicines and direct the funds to research. Major pharmaceutical companies spend significantly more on marketing than on R&D, so it'd be a net win for the taxpayer if they just paid for drug development directly.

[gowld]

Nice idea. Why don't single-payer healthcare systems (the ones who are already enlightened, compared to the backward USA, right?) fund that research today?

If pharma geniuses couldn't make a fortune in pharma, would they work for the government on the Federal wage scale, or would they go to coding bootcamp (which they could easily thrive at, based on the biochem->coding converts I know) and go work for Facebook?

[ceejayoz]

> Nice idea. Why don't single-payer healthcare systems (the ones who are already enlightened, compared to the backward USA, right?) fund that research today?

They (and even our multi-payer system) already do. See: Public universities, NIH grants, etc.

[refurb]

Those two sources pay for a fraction of what goes into R&D at private companies.

[34k5uoi5ui]

because some people want to save lives, rather then enslaving them. If you think working at facebook is the pinnacle of human achievement, I respectfully request you consider where we are, and how many humans around you are suffering.

[darawk]

Then why are those people working at for-profit pharma companies? They can go start a non-profit one right now. They could do research.

[brm]

Well, I can think of a few countries that might find it worthwhile to invest in the health of their citizens. In America we’ll have to make it part of the department of defense in order to get it funded.

[darawk]

Yes, socialized funding is a viable, serious option. There's reasons to be skeptical of the results it would produce IMO, but it's definitely a legitimate proposal.

[zxcmx]

I suppose for the same reason people still create movies, despite the fact that they are easily copied and expensive to produce.

[darawk]

If you want your medicine quality to go from hollywood blockbuster to home movie, I guess that's viable :).

[comicjk]

What OP is saying is that movies are already copyable and yet blockbusters are still being made.

[darawk]

He edited his post. It said something a bit different originally. But to your point, drugs are a pretty different animal. A lot of drugs have a relatively niche market. Take the Hep C cure, for instance. The company that sells it charges something like $80,000 for it, which seems exorbitant to a lot of people.

But how much did it cost them to develop that drug? To get it through the FDA approval process? Their breakeven price on that drug is definitely in the tens of thousands per dose, before you get to any profit. Which means that at a minimum, they're charging $10,000/dose. In the case of movies, sure, i'll pay for netflix because it's more convenient than torrenting, because Netflix costs $10. If Netflix tried to raise their prices to $10,000/month, i'm going to start torrenting again.

[ridgeguy]

RoI may go beyond financial measures for some of us.

I'd invest even if the only yield is longer/better life rather than $.

More $ - not terribly important beyond a threshold.

Longer/better life - yeah, that's important no matter how much money I have.

[darawk]

Sure. But in order to understand this, think about your own personal finances. Not theoretical super-rich you - current actual you. Are you going to buy the stock of a pharmaceutical company that develops drugs that aren't profitable? I'm not. And what that means is that companies developing unprofitable drugs don't get funding.

[blhack]

Yes I agree with you. Apparently it wasn't obvious from my /s, but the entire narrative around this is absurd.

There are people in this thread who seem to be both decrying capitalism, and also asking that extremely rich venture capitalists fund the projects with their riches.

It's absurd. Capitalism has given us the most prosperous, longest living, most peaceful grouping of people in the history of mankind. The drugs these people are synthesizing exist BECAUSE of capitalism.