[notch656a]

Those costs aren't all borne by corporations, just the profits. The cost is the cost of public schooling of the children that invent these things, the invention and development of internet partially funded by DARPA that allows quickly conveying scientific information these companies use, the millinia of scientific research that precedes the invention.

The corporation then benefits from regulatory capture, and insanely high regulatory barriers to lock away less capitalized competitors from introducing their own unique drugs. Those who can afford the insane regulatory costs then can squeeze consumers dry.

Open up a maximally free market for pharmaceuticals and watch these snakes die. If I want to GC/MS some shit I bought out of some guys basement to check purity myself then let me.

[mayapugai]

Even in academia, where most research originates and matures before being sold to corporations, the vast majority of research is tax-payer funded. I wholeheartedly agree with you stance. It's unsurprising that these regulatory barriers keep all but the wealthiest corporations out of the market considering that big pharma and insurance account for significant share the donor-base of most politicians in the United States.

Tax base funds the work, donor base collects the rewards.

[dekhn]

Most of the R&D done to make drugs isn't done at universities. They do some initial discovery work and invent entire new categories of drugs, but their overall role in the process of taking a druggable target to market is limited.

Academia gets to keep rewards; universities patent discoveries and license the technology to industry. This made $$$ for Stanford and UC (billions of dollars).

I am sympathetic to the idea that regular joe of US doesn't get enough benefit for their tax payments but actually I think if you look at all the benefits americans get indirectly from living here, it's hard to say for certain that individuals aren't recompensed properly. And, I suppose, if they wanted, many people can buy stock in pharma and enjoy the profits themselves.

[refurb]

Most of the work is NOT done by academia (i done the academic work myself). I’d say maybe 80% is done by pharma.

You think academia know how to optimize structure? Bulk manufacturer? Organize clinical trials across the globe? Check all the regulatory boxes?

[bmer]

> You think academia know how to optimize structure? Bulk manufacturer? Organize clinical trials across the globe? Check all the regulatory boxes?

Yes? That is literally where the standards for these things are developed, and constantly tested? For example: the techniques for optimizing structure? Developed in academia. Bulk manufacturing? Reliant on tons of science, engineering, and mathematics, that was developed in academia.

[whearyou]

Then you would be mistaken. The proficiency in these tasks and the cost of their execution is borne by Pharma.

Regulatory capture etc is quite real and toxic. But this eat the rich stuff is getting a little out of hand.

[bmer]

I don't understand, where does eat the rich come in here? Academia is usually made up of people who are (relatively) rich and privileged. This has nothing to do with "eat the rich", and everything to do with answering the question: "who bears the costs?", or more appropriately "who pays the bills?".

Answering with the "tax payer" does not now imply that capitalism is evil, and corporations are awful, etc. etc. Rather, it should sober businesses, and remind them that they are part of a system. They need consumers, and consumers need them. Hurting consumers by maintaining unfair prices ultimately comes full circle, and will hurt them, in the long run, even if they profit in the short term.

Of course, our businesses tend not to think about the long term too much, but again, this has nothing to do with "eating the rich", but everything to do with pondering human hubris.

[dekhn]

QC and regulatory costs are absolutely borne by the corporations that are getting their drugs approved. Those are major expenditures.

I'm not completely arguing with the idea that pharma overprices drugs, but to me, that's a distinct problem from who pays for, and benefits from research and development.

[refurb]

Terrible argument that implies “nobody makes anything on their own so I have every right to use their work”.

You are free to make your own drugs and “GC/MS some shit”, though you’d just be smarter to buy it outside the US.

[notch656a]

My argument is terrible. That's why yours is found at the bottom, and mine at the top.

Fuck the thieving snakes claiming it is "their" work when an entirely different 3rd party with no prior contract with the pharma snakes uses their own reagents and chemicals and published or reverse engineered synthetic pathway to produce a substance.

"You are free to make your own drugs." I suppose you are, if you're willing to violate the CSA and FDA/DEA regulations, as my comment pertained to being able to buy drugs _someone else_ made in their basement (although I'd also like to include making your own as well).

[refurb]

Our comments are found in the same place because mine is a reply to yours?

You sounds like a very angry anarchist who doesn't really understand R&D works and what kind of effort is required to put into it.

Why would making your own medicines violate the CSA or DEA regulations? You just looking to get high?

[notch656a]

>Why would making your own medicines violate the CSA or DEA regulations? You just looking to get high?

Maybe you are unaware. Many medicines are controlled substances. Some people are ill and not just looking to get high, although I think getting high is OK too.

>You sounds like a very angry anarchist

Shit, I am an anarchist. I guess you impugned my character and my statements must be irrelevant. Oh wait, that is ad hominem fallacy.

>who doesn't really understand R&D works and what kind of effort is required to put into it.

I am not angry about R&D. R&D I find to be one of the legitimate components of pharma. It takes so many people to bring a drug to market, I don't think you can really understand the complete picture of how R&D works either. But thank you for the arrogant superiority complex. Are you in R&D or something or why do you think I'm attacking researchers? I've continually said (and perhaps this was better reflected on other comments, apologies if not clear enough on my prior) researchers are important to drug development and that they create real value.

It's the regulatory capture, lobbying, insanely high regulatory barriers that enable many pharma businesses to squash new development from competitors that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, corrupt intermingling with FDA and agencies. Amongst other things, but those are some of the larger ones.