[biols]

I think the idea would have been that Pfizer and Moderna could have pooled resources and made a single optimal vaccine faster, though I'll admit I'm not sure it could have happened any faster than it did from my perspective.

The Kefauver Harris Amendment you refer to was immensely important towards the development of safe and efficacious drugs -- I do not see the connection between that act and rare disease therapeutic development. In fact, drugs that only offer marginal improvements in quality of life for rare genetic disease patients are often fast-tracked by the FDA. Requiring that a drug _works_ shouldn't inhibit drug development. Otherwise, we end up with tragedies like what happened with the use of thalidomide, which prompted this amendment in the first place.

[csee]

Competition is an incredible driver of outcomes, e.g. moon landing. It's also better from a risk perspective since it decorrelates efforts and we only need 1 to succeed. It also allows evolution to operate, where the incompetent and broken and corrupt die off and the productive are given more resources, which tends to lead to overall improvement.

Sure, competition also creates waste, which is your main point here, but don't discount the upsides.

Competition has proven itself in the real world. Having only one monolithic vaccine maker (whether for-profit, non-profit, or government) would be a very bad thing. What would happen if it falls to corrupt leadership, as one of many examples of how this could go wrong? There is no mechanism to escape badness here, because we only have 1 of them.

[Coding_Cat]

It is possible to maintain the benefits of competition without the level of duplication and profit motives that we struggle with today.

Large scale collaborative scientific endavours like CERN show us that it is possible to both publically share knowledge and still explore multiple avenues and competing designs. There's also no financial profit motive and while CERN receives a lot of public funding, it has to pump that funding back into the economies of the funding countries so it serves more like a high-tech industry stimulus and technological incubator.

I see no reason why a similar aproach for the development of (specific) therapeutics could not work.

[csee]

I agree that it's possible to preserve many of the benefits of competition under a more centralized and explicitly cooperative structure. You see this sometimes within large for-profit companies that have competing products, which are siloed from each other in the workplace. This works fine, because there is still a profit motive at work and the identical evolutionary forces that will kill a particular silo if it's underperforming, and the same competitive pressure to perform.

Much larger cooperative structures are less proven to work and are more hypothetical, though, even if CERN is an example of such a structure working. The risk, mainly, is that there isn't a good corrective mechanism if the whole thing becomes corrupted or rotten from the top. The other risk is that the cooperation is actually detrimental to progress because it correlates outcomes via group think. Some decorrelation is nice. I am happy that Musk et al. weren't forced to become cogs at NASA, and could explore their own ideas, which was easier to achieve by then being explicitly separate entities (even if they were reliant on contracts).

[Coding_Cat]

> This works fine, because there is still a profit motive at work and the identical evolutionary forces that will kill a particular silo if it's underperforming, and the same competitive pressure to perform.

the profit motive in a multinationally funded system is still there in the sense of 'we have a budget of X, what's the best way to spend it?'. And research avenues that fail to yield the expected results can be terminated. In my experience, disagreement between researchers or groups were also far from uncommon. But maybe that's just physicists being exceptionally knowitall^H^H^H hard to convince :)

It's not flawless, but I don't think it could be less efficient use of public money than the current system where we publically fund early research and the succesfull projects get snatched up by the industry, patented, and sold for large profits. Even if a lot of pharmaceutical research ends up going nowhere (or a competitor beats them to it), we still end up paying for it trough the profit margins of the parent companies.

Raising healthcare costs are a serious concern for many countries, and part pharmaceuticals are a non-trivial part of the cost. Researching and producing them locally might help reduce that cost and stimulate a broader healthcare industry.

I do fear that pharmaceutical research might be to politicized for a multinational approach(e.g. HIV, what disease to prioritize). And there's bound to be some backlash from certain groups over a large 'shadowy' multinational body doing human trials.

[inglor_cz]

"Safety" is quite a wide concept. I heard a professional drug researcher say that aspirin wouldn't pass the trials today, and certainly not as an over-the-counter drug. Too many side effects.

If we can use a software analogy, mess like Windows 95 wouldn't see the light of the day. But they were useful nonetheless.