|
|
|
|
|
|
by InvisibleCities
2436 days ago
|
|
|
>The big issue I see here is the proper allocation of this earmarked funding. The overwhleming majority of exploratory, pre-clinical, and early-phase clinical research is already funded by government grants, particularly from the CDC and NIH. To the extent that this is a "problem", it is one the system already faces. Personally, I would prefer that research funding decisions are made by public officials that are at least nominally accountable to the electorate over ruthless capitalists who are accountable only to their shareholders. |
|
|
The overwhelming number of SAAS prototypes are made by engineers on the weekends - just take a few of those, and $$$, profit.
... Of course not. Exploratory, initial research is not the same as being successful at bringing a drug to market.
Who decides what research to follow? It's successful in animal models, but then later not in humans? Or fails the one of the clinical phase trials. Or isn't safe.
Drug companies fail. Even if something is promising initially, doesn't make it a slam dunk.
Billions can be spent only to have a potential drug sunk by one of the trials.
There are absolute risks. There are tough decisions to be made on which looks most promising and given that money and time and researchers aren't infinite, you have to make the calls on what looks most promising.